The petitioner sought to quash the termination of their mandate as an arbitrator and restore them to the tribunal. The court held that since the arbitration proceedings had culminated with an award passed on 11.05.2016, the writ petition was rendered infructuous and was dismissed.
The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous.
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.
WPMS No. 1024 of 2016
Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Rakesh Negi and Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Advocates for the petitioner.
Mr. K.N. Joshi, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand.
The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition for the following reliefs :
“(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and quashing the decision dated 24.04.2015 (Annexure-11) of the respondent nos. 5 & 6, by which the mandate of the petitioner was terminated.
(ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of the mandamus, commanding the respondents to restore the petitioner as an arbitrator in the Arbitral Tribunal and to further direct the respondent nos. 5 & 6 to complete the proceedings at the earliest, with the help and experience of the petitioner, in the interest of the State and the public money.
(iii) To issue any other order or direction that this Hon’ble Court thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv) To award the costs in favour of the petitioner.”
The nature of the relief as sought for by the petitioner was to quash the order dated 24.04.2015 and re-induct the petitioner as Arbitrator in the Arbitral Tribunal, which was ceased with the resolving the dispute referred to it.
According to the counter affidavit, which has been filed by the respondents / State, in para 11, the following pleadings have been raised :
“That the contents of para nos. 27 of the writ petition are wrong and denied. It is submitted that the petitioner instead of
allowing the proceeding to continue smoothly, made every effort to thwart the continuity of the proceeding. However, with the cooperation of the parties to the arbitration, the Arbitration Tribunal regularly conducted the proceedings as per law and thus, the award was pronounced on 11.05.2016. It is pertinent to mention here that once the award (dated 11.05.2016) has been passed, the present writ petition become infructuous.”
Since the arbitral proceedings have already culminated and an award has been passed on 11th May, 2016, no fruitful purposes would be solved to adjudicate upon the issue, which has been raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
Accordingly, after culmination of the arbitration proceedings, the present Writ Petition has been rendered infructuous and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
Dated 04.04.2019 Shiv
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition seeking quashing of an order terminating an arbitrator and re-induction becomes infructuous if the arbitration award has already been pronounced.
Whether the High Court can adjudicate upon issues raised by a petitioner when the arbitral proceedings have already culminated with an award.
Whether the present Writ Petition is rendered infructuous after the culmination of arbitration proceedings.
Petitioner
State of Uttarakhand / Respondents 5 & 6
Sharad Kumar Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
