Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 385 (JK)

Shaheen Enterprises v. UOI

2017-07-19

B.S.WALIA

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. The only point in issue is as to whether the appointment of arbitrator pursuant to order of this Court dated 30.04.2010 in AA No.264/1996 was required to be made within a period of six months from 30.04.2010 or not. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that the aforementioned objection is without any basis in view of the fact that the learned Writ Court while deciding AA No.264/1996 by taking note of clause 21 (g) of IAFZ-2120 recorded a categoric finding that the sine qua non in terms thereof was only for demand for appointment of an arbitrator to be made within a period of six months from the date the contract was rescinded and the date on which the arbitrator was appointed was irrelevant. Learned counsel contends that in the circumstances, the writ petition challenging the appointment of arbitrator six months beyond the date of order dated 30.04.2010 in AA No. 264/1996 was unsustainable. 3. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 4. Issue No.1 framed in IA No.264/1996 is reproduced here under: “Whether reference of the dispute to the arbitrator was not within the jurisdiction because of non compliance of clause 21(a) of IAFZ-2120? OPO 5. This Court answered the aforementioned issue in AA No.264/1996 by holding that the date of appointment of arbitrator was irrelevant in the context of controversy reflected in issue No.1 as the demand for appointment of arbitrator within six months of rescinding of the contract and not appointment of arbitrators was the requirement of clause 21 (a) of IAFZ-2120. Relevant extract of order dated 30.04.2010 in AA No. 264 of 2010 is reproduced here under: “The plea putforth by the respondents in this regard has gone uncontroverted. The petitioner appears to nurse the belief that the demand for appointment of arbitrator was not made within six months of the date the contract was rescinded on the ground that the arbitrator was appointed about 11 months after the contract was rescinded. The date of appointment of arbitrator seemingly has influenced the petitioner to conclude the requirement of clause 21 (a) of IAFZ-2120 was observed in breach. The demand for appointment of arbitrator within six months of rescinding of the contract and not appointment of arbitrator is the requirement of clause 21(a) of IAFZ-2120. The date of appointment of arbitrator seemingly has influenced the petitioner to conclude the requirement of clause 21 (a) of IAFZ-2120 was observed in breach. The demand for appointment of arbitrator within six months of rescinding of the contract and not appointment of arbitrator is the requirement of clause 21(a) of IAFZ-2120. In the circumstances, the date of appointment of arbitrator 09.09.1996 looses importance in the context of the controversy reflected in issue No.1. Viewed thus, Issue No.1 is decided in favour of respondent and against the petitioner”. 6. Order dated 30.04.2010 in AA No.264 of 2010 is stated to have attained finality. In view thereof, the plea of the petitioner that the appointment of arbitrator pursuant to order of this Court dated 30.04.2010 in AA No.264/2010 appointing the arbitrator six months beyond 30.04.2010 vitiates the appointment of arbitrator is without any merit. Finding no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed. Interim directions, if any, stand vacated.