The main legal point established is that actions in violation of court orders, especially in arbitration proceedings, can lead to the declaration of proceedings as void ab initio and dismissal of related petitions.

JUDGMENT :

1. In view of controversy involved in this case, it would be appropriate to first take up and decide contempt petition, CCP(S) no.29/2023.

2. This contempt petition dates back to the time when a civil suit for Declaration and Mandatory Injunction was filed by petitioner herein before the court of Judge Small Causes, Srinagar (for short “Trial Court”) on 13th April 2006. It was on 17th April 2006 that an application under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act was preferred for appointment of Arbitrator. It appears that while application was pending, respondent-Corporation appointed Mr Jagdeep Rana (respondent no.2 herein) as sole arbitrator. On the application of petitioner, an order dated 22nd June 2011 came to be passed by Trial Court, staying proceedings before arbitrator/respondent no.2 herein till objections were filed.

3. On 24th June 2011, the arbitrator is said to have adjourned the proceedings sine die with liberty to respondent no.1 to seek revival of arbitral proceedings as and when stay granted by Trial Court was vacated. On an application of respondent-Corporation, arbitrator passed an order 16th September 2011, recalling his earlier order dated 24th June 2011 and expressing that there was no direction to stay arbitral proceedings. This appears to have triggered petitioner to come up with contempt petition against respondents before the Trial Court, which, however, was vide Order dated 6th November 2012 dismissed.

4. The order dated 6th November 2012 was challenged by petitioner in a petition, OWP no.377/2014, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 16th December 2015, in which it was observed by a Bench of this Court that in case of disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under Rule 1 or Rule 2 of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was granted or the other was made, the court granting injunction or making the order or any court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred, may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach, to be attached and may also order such person to be detained in civil prison.

It was also observed that there exists a special provision enacted by the legislature in the shape of Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC to punish a person for disobedience of orders of injunction and to maintain the dignity of the courts subordinate to the High Court. As regards the order dated 6th November 2013, it was observed that the court below acted beyond its bounds, authority and jurisdiction and to undone the outrageous miscarriage of justice meted out in the case by resorting to a jurisdiction not vested in court below, it was a fit case to exercise powers vested in the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. And accordingly, allowed petition of present petitioner and set-aside the order dated 6th November 2013, with a direction to the court below to act in the matter in accordance with law. The parties were directed to appear before court below on 28th December 2015.

It was brought to the notice of the Court during course of arguments that arbitrator appointed in violation of ad interim orders of the court below has concluded proceedings and passed final award against the interests of petitioner. To this submission, this Court directed that pending decision in the contempt petition, there would be stay of final award. It was also viewed that in the event it is found that there had been a violation of interim order of the Trial Court, the appointment of Arbitrator and the proceedings conducted by him together with any award passed by him would be rendered non est in the eyes of law.

5. The matter, as is evident from perusal of the file, went to the Supreme Court as respondents herein preferred a Civil Appeal no.1820 of 2018 titled as R.K.Arora General Manager and another v. M/s Ace Enterprises. The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal with the directions: (i) that the application file