Single bench oral order dismissing a revision petition regarding stay of arbitration proceedings due to delay. Court directed initiation of suit trial within one year and remitted record to lower court.
The revision petition stands disposed of; original record remitted for initiation of suit trial within specified timelines.
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.427 of 2001 (O&M)
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.427 of 2001 (O&M) Date of decision:24.09.2016
Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. ... Petitioner
Vs.
Industries Welfare Association and others ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present:Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate for the respondents.
AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)
The petitioner – HSIDCL is aggrieved of the impugned order dated 08.03.1999, whereby, the application moved on behalf of defendant no.1 under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “1996 Act”) for referring the matter to the Arbitrator in view of the letter containing arbitration clause, has been dismissed.
Mr. Aman Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the respondents are an association, who had been allotted industrial plot on certain terms and conditions of the agreement and one of the clause envisages that as and when any dispute arises, allottees shall be bound by the arbitration clause. He further submits that application
Savita 2016.10.06 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CR No.427 of 2001 (O&M) {2}
was filed but the Court dismissed the same on the premise that the petitioner-defendant in the trial Court participated in the proceedings by taking two dates which would not tantamount to participation, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Even copy of the allotment letter was filed and the factum of allotment was not denied, therefore, the remedy of arbitration was meaningless.
Per contra, Mr. Alok Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the allotment of the plot has been taken place in the year 1994, whereas, alleged enhancement is of the year 1992, therefore, claim was without jurisdiction. It is a settled law that where the impugned action is without jurisdiction, remedy of the Civil Court under Section 9 CPC can be obtained dehor of the alternative remedy.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book and of the view that this revision petition is of 2001, whereas, the suit has been filed in the year 1997. It is too late in a day to refer the parties to the Arbitration at this stage. It is a matter of record that few of the members of the Association have settled the matter with HSIDCL.
Be that as it may, without pondering upon the merits of the matter, I am of the view that let the trial of the suit be initiated by giving opportunity to the petitioner to file written statement within a period of four weeks and thereafter, replication within two weeks and thereafter, by affording 4-4 opportunities to each of the parties to lead evidence, trial Court shall endeavour the decision of the suit as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a certified
Savita 2016.10.06 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CR No.427 of 2001 (O&M)
{3}
copy of this order.
Accordingly, the revision petition stands disposed of.
The original record be remitted back to the Court below for compliance of this order.
Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the
Court below on 20.10.2016.
(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE September 24, 2016 savita Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No
Savita 2016.10.06 09:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision petition is maintainable for referring parties to arbitration at this stage given the delay in filing the suit.
How should the trial court conduct the subsequent proceedings to ensure a speedy decision of the suit.
Whether the disposal of the revision petition and remission of the record is appropriate under the circumstances.
Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd.
Industries Welfare Association
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
