Wallace Flour Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Montblanc Investment Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 147 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 18380 of 1998)
Petitioner: Wallace Flour Mills Co. Ltd.
Respondent: Montblanc Investment Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 147 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 18380 of 1998)
Judges: S.B. MAJMUDAR & D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 10, 2000
Head Note:
ARBITRATION LAW
Arbitration Act, 1940
Section 8 – Appointment – Matter adjourned for suggesting name of agreed arbitrator – Parties agreeing to name of Mrs Justice Sujata V. Manohar (Retd) as sole arbitrator, stationed at Mumbai. Held Justice Sujata V. Manohar appointed Arbitrator to fix remunera-tion and deal with objections and evidence Award to be rendered in four months. Time to be extended with consent of parties. (Paras 5 to 9)
Arbitration Act, 1940
Section 8 – Appointment – Matter adjourned for suggesting name of agreed arbitrator – Parties agreeing to name of Mrs Justice Sujata V. Manohar (Retd) as sole arbitrator, stationed at Mumbai. Held Justice Sujata V. Manohar appointed Arbitrator to fix remunera-tion and deal with objections and evidence Award to be rendered in four months. Time to be extended with consent of parties. (Paras 5 to 9)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1.Leave granted.
2.We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for respondent no. 1, who is the only contesting respondent. Respondent no. 2, though mentioned as contesting respondent in the appeal, is an ex-arbitrator and is no longer a contesting respondent.
3.Learned counsel for the appellant fairly states that he with-draws all allegations against Shri Prakash V. Mehta, who is re-spondent no.2 in the present proceedings.
4.On 13th December 1999 we had passed the following order :
“At the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, ad-journed to 10.1.2000 to enable them to suggest if it is possible to have an agreed name of a retired Judge of the Supreme Court or High Court stationed at Bombay to be the sole arbitrator.”
5.We are happy to note that the contesting parties have agreed to the sole arbitration of Hon’ble Justice Sujata V. Manohar, re-tired Judge of this Court, who is stationed at Mumbai. According-ly the said learned arbitrator, subject to her consent will now act as the sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. There is no dispute between the parties that these proceedings will be governed by the Arbitration Act of 1940. Therefore, the learned arbitrator will proceed accordingly to adjudicate the dispute placed for her arbitration.
6.The remuneration of the learned arbitrator will be fixed by her after hearing the parties and will be borne by both the parties equally. The initial expenses of the arbitration also may be fixed by the learned arbitrator after hearing the parties and may be so deposited by both the sides in equal proportion.
7.If any contention is raised by the parties before the learned arbitrator that the award may be a reasoned award or not, it will be for the learned arbitrator to take her own decision in her discretion. The procedure for arbitration, including the time and place thereof, will be fixed by the learned arbitrator after hearing the parties.
8.If any objection is raised regarding the evidence of any of the witnesses to be led by either party, it will be for the learned arbitrator to decide whether such evidence should be permitted to be led or not.
9.The parties have suggested that the learned arbitrator may be requested to complete the arbitration proceedings within four months of entering upon arbitration by the learned arbitrator. We accordingly request the learned arbitrator to complete the arbi-tration proceedings within that time. It will be open to the learned arbitrator to extend the time for completing the said proceedings, if required, by consent of parties.
10.It is made clear that we have not made any observation on the merits of the controversy between the parties.
11.The impugned order of the High Court is set aside and is substituted by the present order.
12.The Civil Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
13.No costs.
1.Leave granted.
2.We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for respondent no. 1, who is the only contesting respondent. Respondent no. 2, though mentioned as contesting respondent in the appeal, is an ex-arbitrator and is no longer a contesting respondent.
3.Learned counsel for the appellant fairly states that he with-draws all allegations against Shri Prakash V. Mehta, who is re-spondent no.2 in the present proceedings.
4.On 13th December 1999 we had passed the following order :
“At the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, ad-journed to 10.1.2000 to enable them to suggest if it is possible to have an agreed name of a retired Judge of the Supreme Court or High Court stationed at Bombay to be the sole arbitrator.”
5.We are happy to note that the contesting parties have agreed to the sole arbitration of Hon’ble Justice Sujata V. Manohar, re-tired Judge of this Court, who is stationed at Mumbai. According-ly the said learned arbitrator, subject to her consent will now act as the sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. There is no dispute between the parties that these proceedings will be governed by the Arbitration Act of 1940. Therefore, the learned arbitrator will proceed accordingly to adjudicate the dispute placed for her arbitration.
6.The remuneration of the learned arbitrator will be fixed by her after hearing the parties and will be borne by both the parties equally. The initial expenses of the arbitration also may be fixed by the learned arbitrator after hearing the parties and may be so deposited by both the sides in equal proportion.
7.If any contention is raised by the parties before the learned arbitrator that the award may be a reasoned award or not, it will be for the learned arbitrator to take her own decision in her discretion. The procedure for arbitration, including the time and place thereof, will be fixed by the learned arbitrator after hearing the parties.
8.If any objection is raised regarding the evidence of any of the witnesses to be led by either party, it will be for the learned arbitrator to decide whether such evidence should be permitted to be led or not.
9.The parties have suggested that the learned arbitrator may be requested to complete the arbitration proceedings within four months of entering upon arbitration by the learned arbitrator. We accordingly request the learned arbitrator to complete the arbi-tration proceedings within that time. It will be open to the learned arbitrator to extend the time for completing the said proceedings, if required, by consent of parties.
10.It is made clear that we have not made any observation on the merits of the controversy between the parties.
11.The impugned order of the High Court is set aside and is substituted by the present order.
12.The Civil Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
13.No costs.
