AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
CM No.22603/2017(exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CM (M) 657/2017 & CM No.22602/2017(stay)
The petitioner impugns order dated 25.05.2017, whereby the
learned Additional District Judge has noticed that the petitioner has
not taken proper steps for summoning of the original arbitral record.
Petitioner has further been directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 12
lakhs within a period of ten days as against the arbitral award of
Rs.20 lakhs with interest besides cost of Rs.1 lakh.
Issue notice. Notice is accepted by the learned counsel for the
respondent.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was for the
learned Court to summon the arbitral record, as the petitioner had
written letters to the Arbitrator for transmitting the record to Court
and the Arbitrator had, on the letter of the petitioner, made an
endorsement directing the petitioner to get a requisition from the
Court to submit the Arbitral Record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner points out to various
proceedings of the Court wherein neither notice has been issued to the
Arbitrator nor the directions issued to the Arbitral Tribunal to transmit
the original records to the Court.
Learned counsel submits that the order dated 25.05.2017 has
been passed as if the petitioner had committed default in not
summoning the original arbitral record.
Learned counsel further submits that an application for stay of
the arbitral award has been filed, which is pending and the direction
contained in order dated 25.05.2017 is not a direction in terms of
Section 36(3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.
Learned senior counsel for the respondent submits that mere
filing of a petition under section 34 of the Act does not amount to an
automatic stay of the arbitral award in view of the amendment to the
Act. He submits that since there is no interim stay, respondent is at
liberty to take appropriate steps for enforcement of the award, till it is
interdicted by an appropriate order of the Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the provision of
the un-amended Act will apply as the proceedings had commenced
prior to the coming into force of the Amending Act .
The scope of this petition is restricted to order dated
25.05.2017, as such I am not required to enter into the above
controversy and I accordingly leave the said issue open to the
considered and decided at an appropriate stage, if so raised..
It is, however, noticed that there is no specific order of the
learned Additional District Judge interdicting the arbitral award in any
manner.
In the above circumstances, the order dated 25.05.2017,
directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 12 Lakhs, is set aside.
It is clarified that it would be for the learned Additional District
Judge to summon the record from the Arbitral Tribunal.
The petition is accordingly disposed of.
Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.