2019 (7) TMI 1844 - HC - Indian Laws

Right to claim impleadment as a party or not - pleadings are complete - time taken by the appellant in prosecuting the matter by filing the present application - HELD THAT - The issue as to whether the name of the appellant should be deleted or impleaded has to be answered only by the Arbitrator. Therefore, the impugned order does not give rise to file appeal. Learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent drawing the notice of this Court to Section 29(A)(4) of the Act, requested this Court to exclude the time taken by the appellant in prosecuting the matter by filing the present C.M.A. failing which, the award could not be passed and the same would be enforced in the light of Section 29(A)(4) and therefore, the time taken by the appellant questioning the impugned order passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator has to be excluded - Considering the submission made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent, the time taken by the appellant is excluded. There are no merit in this appeal - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to Arbitrator's order on impleading necessary party, interpretation of tripartite agreement, jurisdiction of Arbitrator, exclusion of time taken by appellant in proceedings.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge to Arbitrator's order on impleading necessary party
The appellant challenged the order of the Arbitrator regarding impleading as a necessary party. The Division Bench indicated the appellant could raise the plea before the Arbitrator. The appellant argued they need not be impleaded due to lack of an arbitral clause in the tripartite agreement. The Court directed the appellant to approach the Arbitrator for adjudication.

Issue 2: Interpretation of tripartite agreement
The dispute arose when the first respondent failed to fulfill obligations in a tripartite agreement for a puzzle parking system. The matter was referred to arbitration, and various orders were passed appointing Arbitrators. The appellant raised objections regarding being impleaded, which were considered by the Arbitrator.

Issue 3: Jurisdiction of Arbitrator
The Arbitrator held jurisdiction to decide the claim raised by the appellant, indicating the matter was ripe for trial under Section 16(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Court emphasized that the Arbitrator should decide whether the appellant should be impleaded or not.

Issue 4: Exclusion of time taken by appellant in proceedings
The first respondent requested the Court to exclude the time taken by the appellant in proceedings under Section 29(A)(4) of the Act to prevent termination of the Arbitrator's mandate. The Court considered this request and excluded the time taken by the appellant. However, the appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal challenging the Arbitrator's order, emphasizing that the issue of impleading the appellant should be decided by the Arbitrator. The Court also excluded the time taken by the appellant in proceedings to prevent termination of the Arbitrator's mandate.