9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (11) TMI 799X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itration proceedings have arisen out of a claim made by the respondent for reimbursement of the cess collected by the State Government under the Orissa Cess Act, 1962. 2. The case of the respondent before the Arbitral Tribunal, comprising Justice S. Ranganathan, Justice D.R. Khanna and Justice H.L. Aggarwal as arbitrators was that the cess amounts paid by it were reimbursable by the petitioner, the levy having been validated under the Cess and other Taxes on Minerals (Validation) Act, 1992. 3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, has submitted before me that the Apex Court in India Cements Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1990 SC 88 and Orissa Cements Ltd. v . State of Orissa AIR 1991 SC 1676 has h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld arise only after the decision of the larger Bench holding the cess to be legally leviable. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents questions the maintainability of this petition on the ground that a similar prayer had been made before the arbitrators and the same had been declined. In other words, what is submitted is that petitioner having chosen to seek his remedy under section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and having failed there, cannot now come in a petition under section 9 of the Act, seeking protection in the nature of stay of proceedings. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the substance of his request before the arbitrators was for an adjournment and not for interim protection, as contemplated with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondents for reimbursement of cess from the petitioners in terms of the contract. Dr. Singhvi very candidly states that the claim of the respondents is also being opposed on grounds such as limitation and the petitioner not being liable in terms of the contract to pay the same. These pleas are yet to be adjudicated upon. It is only when the arbitrators come to a conclusion that cess is reimburseable by the petitioner in terms of the contract, that the question of any payment being made by the petitioner would arise. 8. On a consideration of the entire matter, I am of the view that it would not be expedient to direct stay of the proceedings before the arbitrators on the ground that reference to a larger Bench of the Supreme Court in rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
