The High Court dismissed a writ appeal filed by an unsuccessful petitioner challenging the appointment of a second arbitrator. The court held that once a claim is before an arbitrator, the court cannot adjudicate its tenability, and found the appeal devoid of merits.
Writ appeal dismissed with no costs.
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.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD
Writ Appeal No.156 of 2011
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao)
Heard both the counsel and at their request, the writ appeal itself is taken up for hearing and disposal at the admission stage.
The appellant is the unsuccessful petitioner, who filed this appeal seeking to assail the correctness of the order of the learned single judge dated 25.10.2010 dismissing Writ Petition No. 11217 of 2009 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The facts in brief are that the appellant filed the aforementioned writ petition challenging the proceedings in letter No. 25/CDL/ARB/08/08, dated 2.4.2008, through which the 2nd respondent herein was appointed as sole arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the appellant and the 1st respondent and to quash the same.
The main contention urged on behalf of the appellant in the writ appeal as well as in the writ petition is that having regard to the claim, which has already been set up by the 1st respondent before the Consumer Forum, which is now pending before the National Commissioner for Consumer Redressal, the 1st respondent ought not to have raised again a claim against the appellant before the Arbitrator. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
Admittedly, there is a clause in the agreement, which provides for appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties. When once a claim is laid before the Arbitrator, it is for the Arbitrator to
adjudicate upon the same. Further, whether the claim laid by the 1st respondent before the Arbitrator is tenable or not can only be examined by the said Arbitrator and this Court cannot adjudicate upon the said issue. It is also seen from the record that the appellant did not challenge the appointment of the first Arbitrator and he filed the writ petition only after the second respondent was appointed as Arbitrator in place of Sri S.Ravi Chandran, the first arbitrator. The learned single judge, while taking the aforesaid facts into consideration rightly dismissed the writ petition through the impugned order. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the learned single judge.
However, it is always open for the appellant to raise any objection, including the objection with regard to the tenability of the claim laid by the 1st respondent before the said Arbitrator.
The writ appeal is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
_________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J)
____________________ (P. DURGA PRASAD, J)
Date: 23rd March, 2011 pnb
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the court can adjudicate on the tenability of a claim filed before an arbitrator.
Whether the appointment of an arbitrator can be challenged after the second appointment.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Unsuccessful petitioner
1st Respondent
2nd Respondent
B. Prakash Rao
P. Durga Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
