9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 876X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... embers that is one to be appointed by each party and an umpire to be appointed by the two arbitrators. 3. Certain disputes arose between the parties and the appellant by notice dated 19.3.1997 appointed its arbitrator and called upon the respondent to appoint his arbitrator. As respondent failed to comply, the appellant filed a petition under section 11(4) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (`Act' for short) on 13.6.1997 in the court of the Principal Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandigarh (a designate of the Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court and hereinafter referred to as the `Designate'). 4. The said Designate by order dated 16.2.2002 dismissed the petition holding that appointment of arbitrator was not call ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Article 227 was maintainable against the order of the Civil Judge, Senior Division (designate of the Chief Justice) and the High Court was wrong in assuming that the writ petition was not maintainable in view of the decision of this Court in SBP. 5. Before considering the contentions raised, we may usefully refer to the following relevant provisions of section 11 of the said Act : "(4) If the appointment procedure in sub-section (3) applies and- (a) a party fails to appoint an arbitrator within thirty days from the receipt of a request to do so from the other party; or (b) the two appointed arbitrators fail to agree on the third arbitrator within thirty days from the date of their appointment, the appointment shall be made, upon requ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rticle 136 of the Constitution and not by way of a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and the High Court was therefore justified in rejecting the writ petition as not maintainable. In SBP, decided on 26.10.2005, this Court while dealing with the scope of section 11, inter alia, held : "(a) The power exercised by the Chief Justice of the High Court under section 11(6) of the Act is not administrative power but judicial power. (b) The power under section 11(6) of the Act, in its entirety, could be delegated by the Chief Justice of a High Court only to another Judge of that High Court. (c) As the order passed by the Chief Justice of the High Court or the designated Judge of the High Court under section 11 of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to orders made by the Chief Justice of a High Court or by the designate Judge of that High Court. The said observations do not apply to a subordinate court functioning as Designate of the Chief Justice. This Court has repeatedly stressed that Article 136 is not intended to permit direct access to this Court where other equally efficacious remedy is available and the question involved is not of any public importance; and that this Court will not ordinarily exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136, unless the appellant has exhausted all other remedies open to him. Therefore the contention that the order of the Civil Judge, Sr. Division rejecting a petition under section 11 of the Act could only be challenged, by recourse to Article 136 is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
