M/s Eastern Mineral & Trading Agency Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 3434/2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7976/2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7976/2000
Petitioner: M/s Eastern Mineral & Trading Agency
Respondent: Steel Authority of India Ltd.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 3434/2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7976/2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7976/2000
Judges: A.P. MISRA & D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 05, 2000
Head Note:
ARBITRATION
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Removal of Arbitrator – Division Bench staying operation of Single Bench, which stayed proceedings before Arbitrator – Also allowing proceedings to be continued – Simultaneously, question referred to Full Bench. Held that it would not be proper to stay proceedings before Arbitrator but he shall not sign the Award as that will be subject to decision in appeal which is pending.
(Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
3. The present petition is directed against the order dated 30th March, 2000 of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in APOT No. 146 of 2000 under which a direction was issued to the respondents to file an affidavit-in-opposition and an affidavit-in-reply. It further ordered, until further orders, the opera-tion of the order passed by the learned Single Judge shall remain stayed and the arbitration proceedings shall go on. This order was passed by the Division Bench as against the aforesaid interim order passed by the learned Single Judge who granted stay of further proceedings before the Arbitrator. The Division Bench simultaneously referred the question to Full Bench, whether under 1996 Act the Court has any jurisdiction to remove any Arbitrator, where arbitration proceedings are going on.
4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. We do not feel it appropriate to stay the proceedings before the Arbitra-tor. The Arbitrator may go on with the proceedings and conclude it but will not sign the Award, which shall be subject to the order to be passed either in the appeal which is pending or the order of the Division Bench.
5. With the aforesaid observations, the present appeal is final-ly disposed of.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
3. The present petition is directed against the order dated 30th March, 2000 of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in APOT No. 146 of 2000 under which a direction was issued to the respondents to file an affidavit-in-opposition and an affidavit-in-reply. It further ordered, until further orders, the opera-tion of the order passed by the learned Single Judge shall remain stayed and the arbitration proceedings shall go on. This order was passed by the Division Bench as against the aforesaid interim order passed by the learned Single Judge who granted stay of further proceedings before the Arbitrator. The Division Bench simultaneously referred the question to Full Bench, whether under 1996 Act the Court has any jurisdiction to remove any Arbitrator, where arbitration proceedings are going on.
4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. We do not feel it appropriate to stay the proceedings before the Arbitra-tor. The Arbitrator may go on with the proceedings and conclude it but will not sign the Award, which shall be subject to the order to be passed either in the appeal which is pending or the order of the Division Bench.
5. With the aforesaid observations, the present appeal is final-ly disposed of.
