Uttarakhand High Court
AO/165/2020 on 31 July, 2023
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
AO No.165 of 2020
Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.
Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Advocate for the
appellant.
2. Although there is no representation for the
respondent but a letter has been sent by the
respondent through registered post to the Chief
Justice, High Court of Uttarakhand, Registrar
(Vigilance) and Deputy Registrar (Judicial) which
has been registered by the Registry as
Miscellaneous Application No.6824 of 2023
wherein a request has been made to adjourn the
hearing of the case till June, 2024. Besides, it is
also stated that the applicant, who is claiming
himself to be representative of the respondent, is in
extremely poor condition and he does not have
money to engage any lawyer or to visit Nainital. In
the letter, several allegations have also been
levelled against the District Judge and the
Arbitrator.
3. Perusal of the order sheet would reveal that
this appeal was filed in the year 2020. Since then,
thrice notices have been issued to the respondent
but neither the respondent appeared in person
either through physical or virtual mode nor he
engaged any lawyer nor he moved any application
for appointment of legal aid counsel from the
SLSA, Uttarkhand or High Court Legal Services
Authority.
4. In such circumstances, this Court is left with
no other option except to hear the counsel for the
appellant on the Stay Application.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant would
submit that by the impugned Judgment/order dated
10.02.2020 the learned District Judge has
dismissed the application moved by the appellant
u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996, for setting aside the arbitration award as
passed u/s 7-B of The Indian Telegraphic Act,
1885, on the ground that the same is barred by
law. She would submit that there was a dispute
between the appellant and the respondent in
respect of the civil work of construction of the
residential block for the employees of BSNL,
therefore, the impugned order passed by the
learned District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar is
unsustainable.
6. She would further submit that Section 7-B
of Indian Telegraphic Act provides for
determination of any dispute concerning any
telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arising
between the telegraph authority and the person for
whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is,
provided by Arbitration, however, in this case,
there was no such dispute; that, the respondent was
a civil contractor who was given contract to
construct the residences of Type 3 quarters for the
employees of BSNL and dispute was not of the
nature as stated in Section 7-B of The Indian
Telegraphic Act.
7. Having considered the submission of
learned counsel for the appellant, the effect and
operation of the impugned judgment/order dated
10.02.2020 passed in Arbitration Case no.01/2008
shall remain stayed till the next date of listing.
8. List on 14.12.2023.
(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.)
31.07.2023
Rajni
