Allowed

Hanamant G. Jadhav v. Union of India and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC19 Jan 2011ARBP/999/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court terminated the mandate of an existing Arbitral Tribunal for failure to act promptly. By consent of parties, the Court ordered the General Manager, Central Railway, to constitute a new Tribunal of three arbitrators within two weeks to adjudicate the claims and counter-claims from the stage of the last hearing of the earlier Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Mandate of the existing Arbitral Tribunal terminated; General Manager directed to constitute a new Tribunal of three arbitrators within two weeks.

Hanamant G. Jadhav Vs Union of India and 3 Ors. — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

ARBP999-10

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

ARBITRATION PETITION NO.999 OF 2010

¶5

Hanamant G. Jadhav .. Petitioner Versus Union of India & Anr .. Respondents

¶6

Mr.U.S.Samudrala for the petitioner.

¶7

Mr.Suresh Kumar a/w Mr.T.J.Pandian for the respondents.

¶8

CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 19^th January 2011.

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

. By this petition invoking this Court’s jurisdiction under sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966, the petitioner-original claimant prays that the authority and mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal consisting of respondent Nos.2 to 4 be terminated with immediate effect as the said Tribunal has failed to act without undue delay.

¶11

2 My attention is invited to an order passed on 20^th November 2008 in Arbitration Petition No.49 of 2008 wherein this Court recorded the statement of the learned counsel appearing for the railways that the proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal will be concluded and award will be delivered on or before 31^st May 2009. That has not been abided by. Further, my attention is invited to the fact that the claim has been made as early as in 2005 pursuant to the order dated 8^th February 2005 passed on the petitioner’s petition for appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal. The Arbitral Tribunal was directed to pass an award expeditiously.

¶12

ARBP999-10

¶13

¶14

3 After the attention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent was invited to this Court’s order and a query was raised as to why the mandate of the existing Tribunal should not be terminated, Mr.Kumar on the earlier occasion sought time to take instructions and place before the Court the details.

¶15

4 At the request of the parties the matter was placed today. After seeking instructions Mr.Kumar produces a copy of the letter dated 18^th January 2011 addressed to Mr.T.J.Pandian, advocate for the Central Railway wherein the General Manager, Central Railway has offered to constitute a fresh Tribunal to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. It is stated that four names have been mentioned in the same and the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner-claimant is agreeable to Mr.Vineet Gupta, CE(C), North, being appointed as one of the arbitrator/nominee of the petitioner. Mr.Kumar on instructions state that the General Manager will appoint two other persons so as to make Arbitral Tribunal of three arbitrators within two weeks from today. It is, therefore, prayed that this petition be disposed of by consent of parties with the following order:

¶16

: O R D E R :

¶17

(a) The mandate of the existing Arbitral Tribunal consisting of respondent Nos.2 to 4 stands terminated forthwith.

¶18

(b) The General Manager, Central Railway will constitute Arbitral Tribunal of three arbitrators, one of whom shall be Mr.Vineet Gupta who shall act as a nominee of the petitioner-claimant. The General Manager to appoint other two arbitrators within a period of two weeks from today.

¶19

ARBP999-10

¶20

¶21

(c) This Arbitral Tribunal will thereafter adjudicate on the claims and counter-claims of the parties from the stage of the last hearing of the earlier Tribunal and render an Award as expeditiously as possible and within a period of four months from today.

¶22

(d) All contentions of both the sides on merits and maintainability of the claims are kept open.

¶23

(e) The petition is disposed of in above terms.

¶24

(f) There will be no order as to costs.

¶25

(g) All concerned to act upon an authenticated copy of this order.

¶26

(S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)

Hanamant G. Jadhav v. Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanamant G. Jadhav v. Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sicom Ltd. Vs V.J. Prasad and Ors.

Smt. Pramila Ramesh Shah. Vs Chandresh G. Jani.

Neeta H. Panchmatia Vs Anant v. Hegde and Anr.

First Health Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs Indian Cancer Society

Ceragam World India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ramesh Kumar Jain

Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs the General Secretary, Best Workers Union and Anr.