Full Text
ARB.APPL.96/2009
Date of Decision: 25th September, 2009
PANKAJ GUPTA .…Petitioner
Through: Mr. Raman Kapur, Advocate
Through: Mr Himanshu Upadhyaya with Mr Nitin Kumar, Advocates.
MOHD. HANEEF .…Petitioner
Through: Mr. Raman Kapur, Advocate
Through: Mr Himanshu Upadhyaya with Mr Nitin Kumar, Advocates.
JUDGMENT
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported NO in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The counsels have mentioned the two petitions under Section 2009:DHC:4087 99/2009 (also under Section 11 of the Act) listed and disposed of yesterday. They state that the same arbitrator as appointed in the petitions aforesaid listed yesterday and on the same terms and conditions be appointed in these two petitions also.
2. The claims subject matter of arbitration petition No.84/2009 and Arbitration petition No. 99/2009 listed yesterday, prima facie appeared to be time barred and long dead. However, on the contentions of the petitioners, it was found that the issue whether the claim is a dead/long barred claim could not be decided without further investigation and was as such left open for the decision of the arbitral tribunal.
3. The same is the position with respect to these two petitions also. The said question of limitation qua claims subject matter of these two petitions is also left open for decision by the arbitral tribunal.
4. The Commissioner MCD being the authority for appointing the arbitrator is found to have forfeited the right of appointment in these two petitions also. The petitions are thus allowed.
5. Mr S.M. Chopra, retired Additional District Judge is appointed as the arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising out of the arbitration clause subject matter of agreement in these two petitions between the parties, including the issue whether the claims are time barred/dead or live claims. The claim of the petitioner in arbitration application 96/2009 is stated to be approximately for Rs 3,55,000/and in arbitration application 100/2009 is stated to be approximately 40,000/- besides out of pocket expenses and to be borne in the first instance by the petitioner and subject to award as to costs. The parties to appear before the arbitrator with prior appointment on 23rd October, 2009. Order be given dasti as prayed for.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) September 25th, 2009 M