9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 885X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as regards enforceability of a bond executed by the appellant for his refusal to serve respondent No. 2 for a period of 7 years which is said to be the condition for being sent to Japan. 3. A notice dated 21-9-2000 was served upon the petitioner by the company, i.e., respondent No. 2 directing him to serve the company for 7 years or pay damages amounting to Rs. 66,72,000. 4. According to the petitioner, the said notice did not conform to the provisions of section 21 of the said Act. 5. The appellant contended that there did not exist any arbitration clause for resolution of the dispute as raised by the respondent and, in any event, the said purported legal notice is de hors the alleged agreement bond. A reply to the said n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d void, (C)If (B1) or (B2) is not granted, declare respondent-3 as an usurper in the office of arbitrator in any dispute between Applicant and the Company (respondent-1 through respondent-2), (D) Appoint an arbitrator [if (B1) or (B2) is not granted] under section 11(5) of The Arbitration Conciliation Act (46 of 1996), (E)Declare that arbitral proceedings have not yet commenced for want of compliance with provisions of section 21 of the Act, (F)Any other relief, with costs, may be granted, (G)Meanwhile, respondent-3 may be restrained from functioning as arbitrator in any dispute between the Applicant and respondents-1, 2 alleged to flow from the alleged Agreement (A/11), till final disposal of this Application." By an order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Room No. 5, A-Block, Vikas Bhawan, First Floor, IP Estate, New Delhi-110002. Sd/- (SP SABARWAL) ARBITRATOR D-I/13, Bharati Nagar, New Delhi-110 003 Tele: (Res.) 469-2286, 469-3470 (Off.) 337-9146; Mobile: 9810285966" 11. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 1 was not competent to enter into the said reference having regard to the fact that no requisite notice under section 21 of the said Act was served. 12. The learned Single Judge by reason of the impugned judgment rejected the said contention raised on behalf of the appellant herein inter alia on the ground that once the arbitrator was appointed, there was no necessity now to issue any notice under section 21 of the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y event, the said arbitration proceedings have been set at naught by this Court at the instance of the appellant himself and thus, he cannot be permitted to raise the said questions once over again. 19. Having regard to the fact that the arbitrator was appointed with the consent of the appellant, he is now estopped and precluded from raising the said contention. 20. Having regard to the provisions contained in section 16 of the said Act, we are of the opinion that now all the contentions must be raised before the arbitrator himself. 21. As noticed hereinabove, the appellant herein had not questioned and could not question the said order dated 5-3-2002 of the learned Single Judge. He merely challenged the notice issued by the lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
