Abdul Gaffar Vs. Sri Jaichandlal Ashok Kumar & Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 662 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 18360 of 1999)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 18360 of 1999)
Petitioner: Abdul Gaffar
Respondent: Sri Jaichandlal Ashok Kumar & Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 662 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 18360 of 1999)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 18360 of 1999)
Judges: S.B. MAJMUDAR, D.P. MOHAPATRA & N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 28, 2000
Head Note:
ARBITRATION LAW
Arbitration Act, 1940
Section 8 – Arbitration – Appointment of arbitrator by High Court – Long standing disputes between parties – High Court appointing two arbitrators and one umpire all being Judges – On appeal, parties seeking modification of High Court’s order and agreeing for sole arbitrator in view of cost
involved. Held. Seniormost of the three Judges named by High Court accordingly appointed as sole arbitra-tor with direction for expeditious disposal. Remuneration of arbitrator as well as time and place of
arbitration to be decided by the arbitrator.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned senior Counsel for the appellant and learned senior Counsel for respondent No. 1 finally in this appeal with their consent. Respondent No. 2 is a proforma re-spondent.
3. Learned Counsel for the parties have agreed that they have no objection to abide by the order of the High Court replacing the earlier arbitrator in the arbitration proceedings. They have also agreed that instead of two arbitrators and one umpire appointed by the High Court, it would be better if the seniormost amongst all the three Judges is permitted to continue as the sole arbi-trator in view of the costs involved. They have also stated that they have nothing to say against the arbitrators. In our view, this request appears to be quite reasonable. Therefore, only on this short ground and with the consent of parties, we deem it fit to direct that instead of two arbitrators and one umpire appoint-ed by the High Court, there will be sole arbitration of Mrs. Justice Manjula Bose who will now proceed as such in accordance with law. As the arbitration dispute between the parties is simmering since long, we request the sole arbitrator to make it convenient to dispose of the same as early as possible and pre-ferably within a period of six months from the date of her enter-ing upon the reference pursuant to the present order and proceed-ing further with the arbitration from the earlier stage where it has been left. The remuneration of the sole arbitrator and the deposit of costs will abide by the decision of the sole arbitra-tor. She may fix the same after hearing the parties. The time and place of arbitration may also be decided upon by the arbitrator
accordingly.
4. The impugned order of the High Court is modified to the aforesaid extent. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned senior Counsel for the appellant and learned senior Counsel for respondent No. 1 finally in this appeal with their consent. Respondent No. 2 is a proforma re-spondent.
3. Learned Counsel for the parties have agreed that they have no objection to abide by the order of the High Court replacing the earlier arbitrator in the arbitration proceedings. They have also agreed that instead of two arbitrators and one umpire appointed by the High Court, it would be better if the seniormost amongst all the three Judges is permitted to continue as the sole arbi-trator in view of the costs involved. They have also stated that they have nothing to say against the arbitrators. In our view, this request appears to be quite reasonable. Therefore, only on this short ground and with the consent of parties, we deem it fit to direct that instead of two arbitrators and one umpire appoint-ed by the High Court, there will be sole arbitration of Mrs. Justice Manjula Bose who will now proceed as such in accordance with law. As the arbitration dispute between the parties is simmering since long, we request the sole arbitrator to make it convenient to dispose of the same as early as possible and pre-ferably within a period of six months from the date of her enter-ing upon the reference pursuant to the present order and proceed-ing further with the arbitration from the earlier stage where it has been left. The remuneration of the sole arbitrator and the deposit of costs will abide by the decision of the sole arbitra-tor. She may fix the same after hearing the parties. The time and place of arbitration may also be decided upon by the arbitrator
accordingly.
4. The impugned order of the High Court is modified to the aforesaid extent. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
