Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Hindustan Steel Works - Appellant
Versus
J.B.S. Udyog - Respondent
O.M.P. 41 of 2004, I.A. 2050 of 2021
Decided On : 10-02-2021
Important Points
Subject
Arbitration - Arbitral Proceedings
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) The use of Section 151 of CPC as a residual provision not permissible, particularly in arbitral matters. (Paras 4, 5)
Facts of the case:
The case concerns a disposed petition seeking a direction for the resolution of disputes through arbitration as per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The application for expediting the award came years after the initial appointment of the arbitrator.
Findings of Court:
The court opined the application was not maintainable and requested the arbitrator to expedite the award.
Issues: The court addressed the maintainability of the application filed under Section 151 of CPC in a disposed arbitration petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that applications cannot be sustained under Section 151 CPC when not maintainable under any other provision of law, particularly in cases already disposed of.
Result: Application stands disposed of.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing of an application under arbitration act. (Para 1) |
| 2. request for timely award from arbitrator. (Para 2) |
| 3. application not maintainable under cpc. (Para 3 , 5) |
| 4. clarification on application basis by counsel. (Para 4) |
| 5. request for expeditious decision by arbitrator. (Para 6) |
| 6. disposal of application. (Para 7) |
ORDER (Oral)
(Video-Conferencing)
I.A. 2050/2021(Under Section 151 of CPC - seeking directions)
1. This is an application filed in a petition, under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which stands disposed of, by this court, as far back as on 10th August, 2004, by appointing an arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes.
2. The prayer in this application is for a direction to the learned Arbitrator, seized of the arbitral proceedings between the parties, to render the award within a period of three months.
3. To my mind, such an application, in a petition which already stands disposed off, is not maintainable.
4. To a query, from the Bench, as to the provision under which the application has been filed, Mr. Kalra, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 (the applicant in the application), submits that the application seeks to invoke Section 151 of the CPC.
5. In my opinion, Section 151 of the CPC cannot be used as a residual provision, to sustain applications which are otherwise not maintainable under any provision of the law as it stands, least of all in arbitral proceedings.
6. Be that as it may, as the matter has been pending before the learned arbitrator since long, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this application, with a request to the learned arbitrator to render the award on the arbitration as expeditiously as possible.
7. The application stands disposed off accordingly.
