9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 652X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the award dated 27-10-2005 in the Court of Learned District Judge, Dehradun and to decide the objections and in alternative; (ii) direct the Learned District Judge, Dehradun to decide the objections being Suit No. 232 of 2005 within a period of 3 months from the date of the order. 2. In order to dispose of these IAs Nos. 1 and 2, it may be relevant to refer to a few facts. A dispute arose between the applicant and the Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. with regard to conducting tours and certain payments being not made. Therefore, the matter was taken by M/s Krishna Travel Agency, the Respondent applicant before a competent Court. Ultimately, the matter reached this Court and this Court by the Order Dated 17-12-2004 appointed Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecision of this Court in State of M.P. v. Saith and Skelton (P) Ltd. In this case, this Court appointed the arbitrator and it was observed by this Court: 18. ...In the absence of any other Court having been invested with such jurisdiction by the order, the only conclusion that is possible is that such a request must be made only to the Court which passed that order, namely, this Court. 5. Learned Counsel emphasised that the definition of the Court as given in the Act of 1940 and that in Section 2(1)(e) of the 1996 Act are in pari materia and therefore in view of the decision given by this Court in State of M.P.: (1972) 1 SCC 702, this Court alone has the jurisdiction to entertain the objections. In another case Guru Nanak Foundation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, therefore, in our opinion, this application is not maintainable before this Court. This judgment was followed subsequently in State of Goa v. Western Builders (2006) 6 SCC 239, to which one of us (Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Mathur) was a party, it was observed: 21. In National Aluminium Company Ltd. v. Pressteel Fabrications (P) Ltd. unilateral appointment of the arbitrator under the Arbitration Act, 1940 was challenged. This Court in the said appeal after hearing the parties appointed a sole arbitrator. Before the sole arbitrator both the parties by consent agreed that the proceedings should be governed by the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The arbitrator proceeded on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. This means that a valuable right of appeal will be lost. Therefore, in the scheme of things, the submission of the Learned Counsel cannot be accepted. Taking this argument to a further logical conclusion, when the appointment is made by the High Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, then in that case, in every appointment made by the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 11(6), the High Court will become the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction, as defined in Section 2(1)(e) of the 1996 Act. That is certainly not the intention of the legislature. Once an arbitrator is appointed then the appropriate forum for filing the award and for challeng ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
