Disposed

M/S Rajdhani Advertisers v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Feb 2012ARB/20/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, claiming the Commissioner became functus officio after missing a court-mandated six-month deadline. The court held the time limit was directory, not mandatory, and distinguished cited precedent regarding jurisdictional constraints.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of; petitioner directed to invoke Section 14 and 15 jurisdiction of principal civil court if seeking revocation of mandator.

M/S Rajdhani Advertisers Vs State of Punjab and Others — Arbitration | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Arbitration Case No.20 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Arbitration Case No.20 of 2012

¶5

Date of Decision : 03.02.2012

¶6

M/s Rajdhani Advertisers

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents

¶9

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

¶10

Present: Mr. P.S.Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

HEMANT GUPTA, J.

¶12

This is an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') for appointment of an independent and impartial sole Arbitrator to decide the disputes and differences relating to Agreement dated 30.11.2007.

¶13

The petitioner was awarded contract for providing, installation and maintaining of Nine Glow Sign Gantries within the Municipal Corporation, Patiala on built, operate & transfer basis vide the aforesaid Agreement. The dispute arose between the parties. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Patiala was the sole Arbitrator in terms of the Arbitration Clause in the Agreement. The Arbitration Clause III(xvi) reads as under:

¶14

"xvi. That in case of any disagreement or dispute on interpretation of any term used in this agreement, the decision of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Patiala being sole administrator on reference by the either party shall be final and binding. No other Court, tribunal or forum shall have the

¶15

Arbitration Case No.20 of 2012

¶16

¶17

jurisdiction to entertain and try and dispute or disagreement arising out of this contract agreement."

¶18

Earlier, this Court in Arbitration Case No.47 of 2009 titled "M/s Rajdhani Advertisers Vs. The State of Punjab and others" directed the petitioner to appear before the said Arbitrator i.e. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Patiala along with the statement of claim. Four weeks time was granted to the respondent to submit reply. It was observed that the arbitration proceedings should be concluded preferably within a period of six months. The operative part of the order dated 14.01.2010 reads as under:

¶19

"In my view the letter which had been issued by the Commissioner shall not come in the way of his acting as the Arbitrator. Accordingly, I direct that the petitioner would appear on 26.03.2010 at 11 AM before the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Patiala alongwith the statement of claim. Response to the statement of claim shall be filed within four weeks thereafter. I have no doubt in my mind that the Arbitrator shall not take into consideration the letter issued by him and shall dispose of the arbitration proceedings as early as possible preferably within a period of six months."

¶20

Since the matter was not decided by the Arbitrator, the petitioner invoked the jurisidiction of this Court for appointment of an indepenent Arbitrator.

¶21

It is argued that after the expiry of time fixed by this Court, the named Arbitrator has become functus officio and cannot proceed with the arbitration proceedings. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as N.B.C.C.Ltd. Vs. J.G.Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 2 SCC 385 .

¶22

A perusal of the Arbitration Clause, reproduced above, shows

¶23

Arbitration Case No.20 of 2012 3

¶24

that there is no time limit in the agreement in respect of conclusion of arbitration proceedings nor there is any time limit in the Act for completion of arbitration proceedings. Since there is no time limit for deciding the arbitration proceedings by an Arbitrator in the Agreement or in the Act itself, the inference drawn by the petitioner that the Arbitrator has become functus officio is not tenable. This Court in its order dated 14.1.2010 has observed that the arbitration proceedings should be disposed of as early as possible preferably within a priod of six months. The order does not contemplate consequences of not concluding the arbitration proceedings within the time recited. Thus, the time limit fixed in the order is only directory.

¶25

The judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner is clearly distinguishable. The Agreement contemplated the Arbitrator to extend time for announcing award. In the aforesaid case, after a long delay in concluding of the proceedings, the Court has fixed six months period for conclusion of arbitration proceedings with the consent of the parties. It was found that once Court has fixed time with the consent of the parties, the Arbitrator cannot unilaterlly extend period of announcing the Award. It appears that the parties have invoked the original jurisidiction of Calcutta High Court to seek termination of the mandate of an arbitrator in terms of Section 14 and 15 of the Act. Such application was before the principal court of civil original jurisdiction as contmeplated by Section 2(e) of the Act. This Court does not exercise original jurisdiction and is not principal court of civil original jurisdiction. There is no discussion in the aforesaid order that the Chief Justice or his designate under Section 11 (6) of the Act can terminate the

¶26

Arbitration Case No.20 of 2012

¶27

¶28

mandate of an Arbitrator, if time is fixed by the Chief Justice or his designate earlier.

¶29

In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the aforesaid judgment is not helpful to the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶30

It shall be open to the petitioner to invoke its jurisdiction of the principal court of civil original jurisdiction to seek revocation of the mandate of an Arbitrator before the competent court in accordance with law.

¶31

Disposed of accordingly.

¶32

(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE

¶33

03.02.2012 Vimal

M/S Rajdhani Advertisers v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Rajdhani Advertisers v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar Malhotra and Ors. Vs Kasturi Lal Malhotra

M/S Genus Power Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Punjab State Power Corpn. Ltd. and Anr.

M/S Jyoti Sarup Mittal Vs M/S Vayu Sena Sadan Coop Group

M/S Ram Kumar Bansal Vs Union of India and Ors.

Desh Raj Vs Haryana State Roads and Bridges Dev. Corp. Ltd. and Ors.

Vipin Malik Vs State of Haryana and Others