Petitioners challenged the appointment of a sole arbitrator who allegedly had a conflict of interest. The petition became infructuous when the arbitrator subsequently decided the petitioners' statutory objection regarding his independence under Section 13 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
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.
CR No.4185/2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.4185/2011 Date of decision: 22.11.2011.
Jatinder Nursing Home & Anr.
....................Petitioners
v.
M/s PKF Finance Ltd. & Anr.
.....................Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh
Present: Mr.Damanvir Singh Sobti, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rohit Sood, Advocate for the Respondents.
Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral)
Following a dispute having arisen between respondent no.1 and petitioners, respondent no.1 filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996(for short the 'Act') in the Court of Additional District Judge(FTC), Jalandhar. Upon notice of the petition, petitioners filed a detailed reply to the said application. On coming to know about appointment of respondent no.2 as sole arbitrator, petitioners challenged the appointment of respondent no.2 by sending a communication to him to inform the petitioners as to in how many cases he had represented respondent no.1 as also as to whether he was on the panel of legal advisors/advocates of respondent no.1. Since the petitioners got no satisfactory reply from respondent no.2 they also
CR No.4185/2011 2
took recourse under the Right to Information Act to elicit the requisite information in response to which they were informed by the respondent no.2 that provision of Right to Information Act are not applicable to the Arbitrator. Thereafter petitioners filed an application under Section 13 of the Act before respondent no.2.
In the present revision petition, in sum and substance the grievance of the petitioners is that without deciding the application under Section 13 of the Act filed by the petitioners, respondent no.2 is proceeding with the arbitration proceedings. Hence it is prayed that a direction be issued to respondent no.2 to the effect that he has no authority to act as a sole arbitrator with respect to the dispute between the parties. In the alternative a prayer has been made to direct the respondent no.2 to decide the application under Section 13 of the Act at the first instance.
This Court vide order dated 13.07.2011 while issuing notice of motion restrained the Arbitrator from pronouncing the award. On 08.11.2011 learned Counsel for the respondent had brought to the notice of the Court that the present revision petition has been rendered infructuous as the Arbitrator vide order dated 20.08.2011 has decided the application of the petitioners under Section 13 of the Act. A copy of the order dated 20.08.2011 passed by the sole Arbitrator on the application filed by the petitioners under Section 13 of the Act was produced in the Court and the same was taken on record. Since on that date none had put in appearance on behalf of the petitioners, the case
CR No.4185/2011 3
was adjourned for today.
At the time of hearing today it is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that their application under Section 13 of the Act stands decided by the Arbitrator and as such the present revision petition has become infructuous.
In view of the above, present petition is dismissed as
infructuous.
22.11.2011 joshi
(Jaswant Singh) Ju dge
Jatinder Nursing Home & Anr.
M/s PKF Finance Ltd. & Anr.
Jaswant Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
