In an arbitration case, the petitioner sought appointment of an independent arbitrator claiming the previously appointed one was invalid. The court held that since the petitioner had earlier admitted the arbitrator was appointed and the prior petition was closed, the current plea was an abuse of process.
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.
Arbitration Case No.113 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Arbitration Case No.113 of 2011
Date of Decision : 02.03.2012
M/s Gawar Construction Company
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral)
The petitioner has sought appointment of an independent Arbitrator in respect of the disputes arising out of Agreement No.12 of 2007-08 for the work of periodical renewal of NH-10, Km. 278.00 to 285.00 & 302.00 to 315.550 in the State of Haryana falling within the jurisdiction of PWD Provincial Division No.2, Hisar.
The petitioner has sought appointment of an Arbitrator after serving notice dated 01.10.2008. The petitioner earlier filed a petition before this Court, which was disposed of as infructuous on 17.12.2009 in view of the statement of learned counsel for the petitioner that an Arbitrator has already been appointed. Subsequently, the Arbitrator has given its Award on 16.02.2011, a copy of which is attached as Annexure P-4.
Now the petitioner has sought appointment of an independent Arbitrator pointing out that the Arbitrator was appointed after the filing of the petition before this Court and, therefore, the award rendered by
Arbitration Case No.113 of 2011
2
such an Arbitrator is not legal.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that the present petition is a gross abuse of process of law. Earlier, the petition filed by the petitioner for appointment of an Arbitrator was disposed of as infructuous, when the petitioner itself made a statement that the Arbitrator has already been appointed. If the petitioner had any reservation regarding the appointment of said Arbitrator, the petitioner should have agitated the appointment of such Arbitrator in that proceedings. But the petitioner cannot be permitted to dispute the appointment of an Arbitrator or the rendering of the Award by such Arbtirator in the subsequent petition.
Consequently, the present petition is dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE
02.03.2012 Vimal
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the court can allow a petition for appointing an independent arbitrator when the petitioner had previously admitted the appointment was made.
Whether the petitioner can dispute the appointment of an arbitrator and the validity of his award in a subsequent petition after the earlier petition was disposed of as infructuous.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s Gawar Construction Company
State of Haryana
Hemant Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
