Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Jagdish Raj And Bros vs Union Of India And Others on 19 April, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052970
2024:PHHC:052970
ARB-494-2023 (O & M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
244-3. ARB-494-2023 (O & M)
Date of decision:19.04.2024
M/S JAGDISH RAJ AND BROTHERS ...PETITIONER
VS.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present: Mr. Dheeraj Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Chander Mohan Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel,
Union of India, for the respondents.
***
SUVIR SEHGAL J. (ORAL)
1. By way of present petition filed under Section 11 (6) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short "the 1996 Act")
petitioner has approached this Court for appointment of an independent
Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute, which has arisen between the
parties, out of regular contract agreement No.EE/MCD/39 of 1991,
Annexure P-1.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was
awarded a construction contract in the year 1991-92. A dispute arose
between the parties and the petitioner filed a suit for recovery before the
civil Courts in February, 1993. Counsel submits that the respondents filed
an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, which was
accepted by the learned Civil Judge vide order dated 08.08.1997,
Annexure P-5, and the suit was stayed to enable the petitioner to apply for
arbitration. He submits that the petitioner filed an application under
Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, in the year 1997, which was
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052970
2024:PHHC:052970
ARB-494-2023 (O & M) -2-
dismissed and first appeal filed by the petitioner was disposed of by this
Court vide judgment dated 29.01.2018, Annexure P-7, remitting the
matter to the learned District Judge, Amritsar, who dismissed the appeal
on 13.07.2018, Annexure P-8. He submits that this order was challenged
in a revision petition before this Court, which was permitted to be
withdrawn by order dated 19.10.2023, Annexure P-9. He submits that
thereafter the instant petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the
1996 Act.
3. Upon notice, respondents have appeared through a counsel,
although, no reply has been filed to the petition, but a miscellaneous
application has been moved inter alia objecting to the appointment of an
Arbitrator on the ground that the petition is barred by time.
4. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered the
submissions.
5. The stand taken by the respondents in the miscellaneous
application cannot be accepted. During the pendency of the revision
petition before this Court, respondents had given an express "no
objection" to the appointment of an Arbitrator and also agreed that the
parties shall be governed by the 1996 Act. It would be pertinent to refer to
the order, Annexure P-9, passed by this Court, which is reproduced
hereunder:-
"1. The petitioner herein assails order
dated 24.9.1999 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar, vide which a
petition under Section 20 of Arbitration Act, 1940
filed by the petitioner seeking referring of the dispute
to the Arbitrator, has been dismissed. The petitioner
also assails order dated 13.7.2018 passed by learned
Additional District Judge, Amritsar whereby appeal
against the aforesaid order dated 24.4.1999 has also
been dismissed.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052970
2024:PHHC:052970
ARB-494-2023 (O & M) -3-
2. During the course of arguments, learned
counsel representing the respondents submitted that
the respondents would not have no objection for
appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate in the
matter and that the parties be governed by the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
3. In view of the aforesaid statement,
learned counsel representing the petitioner submitted
that the aforesaid offer is acceptable to the petitioner
and that, as such, keeping in view the statement made
by learned counsel for the respondents, he may be
permitted to withdraw the instant revision petition with
liberty to file a petition under Section 11(6) of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for
appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate on the
dispute in hand.
4. In view of the aforesaid submission, the
instant petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty
aforesaid ."
6. In view of the above, the objection raised by the respondents
regarding limitation, is rejected. Prayer made in the petition is accepted.
7. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Mr. Justice M.S. Sullar (Retd.),
a former judge of this Court, Kothi No. 220, Sector 25, Panchkula, Mobile
No.9780008105, is requested to act as a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the
dispute between the parties, subject to compliance of statutory
requirements.
8. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Arbitrator on the
day, time and place to be fixed by him.
9. Liberty is granted to the parties to raise all the claims, counter
claims, defences, pleas etc. before the Arbitrator.
10. A request letter alongwith a copy of this order be communicated
to Mr. Justice M.S. Sullar (Retd.).
11. Pending applications are disposed of.
19.04.2024 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
sheetal JUDGE
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
