Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 328 (HP)

Data Ram v. Reliance Infratel Ltd.

2013-04-18

SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. Petitioner entered into an agreement dated 15.10.2007, in terms of which certain premises were let out by him to the respondent. Certain dispute with regard to arrears of rent arose between the parties for which Plaintiff/petitioner filed a Civil Suit for recovery. In the said suit, respondent/ defendant filed an application under the provisions of Section 8 read with Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Considering the Arbitration Clause contained in the agreement, respondent wanted the matter to be referred to arbitration. Application (Annexure P-2) is on record to this effect. 2. Respondent's application was allowed and resultantly plaintiff's suit was returned in terms of order dated 16.1.2012 passed by learned Civil 2 Judge (Sr.Div.), Court No.1, Paonta Sahib, in CMA No.8/6 of 2012, Civil Suit No. 53/1 of 2011, titled as Data Ram v. Reliance Infratel Limited. Hence, petitioner- plaintiff has filed the present petition under the provisions of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes inter se between the parties. 3. The present petition is opposed on the ground that the petition is not prepared in the format stipulated under the Scheme. 4. In my considered view, rules are handmaiden of justice and the petition itself cannot be rejected on this technical ground, more so when petitioner has annexed copy of the plaint clearly disclosing the dispute inter se between the parties. It is not that respondent is neither aware nor made aware of such disputes. In fact, respondent was aware of the pendency of the civil suit filed by the present petitioner. 5. The petition is also opposed on the ground that it is barred by limitation. According to Mr. Janesh Gupta, learned counsel, cause of action arose on 25.2.2009 and the instant petition was filed on 11.3.2013. In my considered view, the contention needs to be rejected for the simple reason that plaintiff filed the suit within the period of limitation prescribed under the law. In 3 the said suit, defendant had moved an application for referring the disputes to the Arbitrator. Plaint was returned to the plaintiff in terms of order dated 16.1.2012 and instant petition was filed on 11.3.2013, after the plaintiff got served a notice sent by Registered A.D. on 18.5.2012. The respondent also responded to the same. In 3 the said suit, defendant had moved an application for referring the disputes to the Arbitrator. Plaint was returned to the plaintiff in terms of order dated 16.1.2012 and instant petition was filed on 11.3.2013, after the plaintiff got served a notice sent by Registered A.D. on 18.5.2012. The respondent also responded to the same. It is only when the Arbitrator was not appointed, petitioner filed the instant petition. Whether the claim is barred by limitation or not is a question which needs to be adjudicated by the Arbitrator but it cannot be said that the present petition is barred by limitation. 6. Hence, as mutually agreed upon between the parties, Shri R.S. Verma, learned Advocate, sitting in the Court, is appointed as an Arbitrator. The disputes exist. Validity of the arbitration agreement is not in dispute. 7. The Arbitrator shall issue notice to both the parties within next four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. An endevaour shall be made to complete the proceedings within a period of six months. His fee, as mutually agreed by learned counsel, shall be Rs.20,000/-, which shall be shared by both the parties and shall be subject to the final award. Mr. R.S. Verma, learned Advocate shall be entitled to Secretarial expenses which shall be borne by both the parties. 50% of 4 the amount shall be paid to the learned Arbitrator at the time of entering reference and the remaining fee shall be paid at the time of passing of the award. The fee shall be shared by both the parties. The petitioner shall file his claim within a period of four weeks. 8. Registry is directed to supply a copy of this order to the learned Arbitrator, immediately. 9. With the aforesaid directions, present arbitration case is disposed of.