AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.K. Sikri, J.
Rule D.B.
Mr. Lokur, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent and waive the service of Rule. Having regard to the nature of the issue raised in this petition, we are of the opinion that the petition can be disposed of at this stage itself.
It is pointed out in this petition that in exercise of the powers conferred by sub Section (10) of Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") read with para 12 of the Scheme for Appointment of Arbitrators, 1996, Notification dated 29th January, 1996 was issued providing Scheme for Appointment of Arbitrators. This was further amended on 18th August, 2003.
Para 3 of the said Scheme specifies the authorities who were to deal with the request made for appointment of arbitrators u/s 11 of the Act. It was stipulated that in case where value of the subject matter does not exceed rupees 5 lacs, the authority to deal with the matter was designated to the Civil Judge. Likewise, where the value of the subject matter does not exceed rupees 20 lacs, the District Judge/Additional District Judge was designated as the authority to deal with the request for appointment of an arbitrator.
A seven Judges Bench of Supreme Court in S.B.P. and Co. Vs. Patel Engineering Ltd. and Another, overruled its earlier decision of five Judges Bench given in the case of Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. and Another Vs. Rani Construction Pvt. Ltd., that the power u/s 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 is an administrative power and held that the said power u/s 11 is a judicial power. The Apex Court further held that since Section 11 of the Act uses the expression "Chief Justice" or the authority designated by it, who is to deal with such a request, the delegation of power of the Chief Justice can be dealt with by the Judges of the High Court/Supreme Court respectively and such a power could not be delegated to Civil Judge or District Judge u/s 11 of the Act. This necessitated the amendment in the aforesaid scheme. Accordingly, notification dated 9th November, 2009 was issued.
In this petition, the petitioner points out that though by aforesaid notification, the processing charges have been modified vide amendment to para 10 of the Scheme in respect of the Civil Judge/District Judge or High Court, there was no necessity to revise the charges in respect of matter to be dealt by Civil Judge/District Judge as no power was left with Civil Judge/District Judge. It is further mentioned that there is no amendment made to para 3 of the Scheme thereby deleting clause (a) and (b) which referred to Civil Judge/District Judge as this reference has become redundant.
Mr. Lokur points out that the consequential changes have already been made and only formal Notification incorporating those amendments remains to be issued.
In view of the statement of the learned Counsel for the respondent, no direction needs to be given in this petition as the prayers made in the petition stand satisfied.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.