The Court discharged counsel in one application. In the main matter, the petition was dismissed for failure to commence arbitration proceedings within 90 days of an interim order under Section 9(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Petition and all pending applications dismissed. Counsel discharged.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~7
MANMOHAN RASTOGI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Ashwani Kumar Goel, Adv. Mr. Shellen Kumar Bajaj, Adv.
versus
SUBASH DOGRA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Mahavir Singh, Mr.Sanjay K.Chadha, Advs. for R-1-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
O R D E R
IA 13722/2017
The present is an application filed by the counsel for the petitioner under Chapter V Rule 5 of the Delhi High Court Rules (1967) seeking discharge from the petition.
As Mr. Ashwani Kumar Goel, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the petitioner, the application is allowed and Mr.Shellen Kumar Bajaj is discharged as the counsel for the petitioner.
O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 146/2017
This Court, vide an interim order dated 30th March, 2017, had passed the following directions:-
“3) Till the next date of hearing, the Respondents, their trustees, assigns, partners, families, managers are restrained from creating any third party rights or parting with possession of any part of the property at EA/2, Model Town Part-I, Delhi 110009.”
....2/-
-2-
I am informed that till date, the petitioner has not invoked the arbitration agreement.
Section 9(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides as under:-
“9(2) Where, before the commencement of the arbitral proceedings, a Court passes an order for any interim measure of protection under sub-section (1), the arbitral proceedings shall be commenced within a period of ninety days from the date of such order or within such further time as the Court may determine.”
As the arbitral proceedings have not been commenced till date and more than 90 days have passed since the ad interim order passed by this Court and no explanation for such delay is forthcoming from the petitioner, the present petition along with all pending applications are dismissed.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
NOVEMBER 22, 2017 RN
2 issues framed by the court
Whether ordinance proceedings should be dismissed for failure to commence arbitration within the statutory limitation period after an interim order.
Whether the petitioner is discharged from appearing as counsel in a pending application.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Manmohan Rastogi
Subash Dogra
Navin Chawla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
