High Court allowed civil revision prayer for replacement of arbitrator. Set aside District Judge's order dismissing Section 11 application as not maintainable. Directed re-decision.
Order under challenge set aside; distinguished District Judge directed to re-decide application.
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.
-1-
Civil Revision No.4578 of 2017 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.4578 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Order:02.04.2018
M/s St. Soldier Elite Convent School
..Petitioner
Versus
M/s Little Einstein and another
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Gurmohan Singh Bedi, Advocate, for respondent no.1.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)
Petitioner is in revision petition against the order dated 31.05.2017, praying for replacement of the previously appointed Arbitrator.
Learned District Judge, Ludhiana, has dismissed the application on the ground that the application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can only be moved before Hon'be the Chief Justice of the High Court. Learned District Judge has over looked the fact that earlier the petitioner had moved an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the High Court which was dismissed on 17.03.2017.
Petitioner in the present case is prayed for appointment of the new Arbitrator in place of old one. The application filed by the petitioner , although not happily worded, would be an application under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Although, learned counsel for respondent no.1 has vehemently
Naresh Kumar 2018.04.16 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
-2-
Civil Revision No.4578 of 2017 (O&M)
argued that the petitioner was required to file an application under Section 13 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the Arbitrator itself, however, taking into consideration the fact that the learned District Judge has not even adverted to this objection of the respondent and has simply dismissed the application on the ground that it is not maintainable, this court is left with no choice but have to set aside the order under challenge and direct the learned District Judge, Ludhiana, to re-decide the application after taking into consideration the order passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, dated 17.03.2017 while keeping in view the objections of the respondent with regard to maintainability of the application.
The revision petition is allowed.
Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Ludhiana, on 18.04.2018.
April, 02, 2018 (ANIL KSHETARPAL) nt JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No
Naresh Kumar 2018.04.16 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an application for appointment/ replacement of an arbitrator filed before the District Judge is maintainable without first approaching the Chief Justice of the High Court.
Whether the High Court order dismissing the application was correctly passed.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s St. Soldier Elite Convent School
M/s Little Einstein
Anil Kshetarpal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
