Back
2020 Supreme(All) 741
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ajay Bhanot, J.
Mrs. Madhuri Saxena (since deceased) Through L.R. – Petitioner
Versus
Sahkari Awas Evam Vitt Nigam Ltd. Sarojni Marg Lucknow UP – Respondent
Matters Under Article 227 No. - 237 of 2020
Decided On : 14-08-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Shrish Chandra
Point of Law: The legislative mandate of Section 34 (5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has not been implemented. The stakeholders have shown apathy towards the litigant, and indifference to the noble charter of the legal profession. Honest endeavours and earnest efforts to conclude the proceedings with diligence and dispatch are not disclosed from the order-sheet. The order-sheet of the case is equally a reflection and an indictment of the judicial process. The court has ample powers to ensure that the process of law is not stalled by the dilatory tactics of any party. The courts are not helpless and cannot be seen to be helpless.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 227, 19 – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – Conclude the proceedings of Arbitration – Petition has been filed with the prayer to issue an appropriate order or direction to the learned District Judge, Ghaziabad (Prescribed Authority), to forthwith decide and conclude the proceedings of Arbitration Case as expeditiously as possible and within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court without granting any unnecessary adjournments – To issue an appropriate order or direction to the learned District Judge, Ghaziabad to forthwith decide the execution application in furtherance of the arbitral award filed in Execution Case (Paresh Saxena Vs. Sahkari Awas Nirman Evam Vitt Nigam Ltd.) as expeditiously as possible and within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court without granting any unnecessary adjournments –
Finding of the Court:
Compliance of directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and adherence to the law laid down by this Court in various authorities discussed earlier is not in evidence. – The legislative mandate of Section 34 (5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has not been implemented. – The stakeholders have shown apathy towards the litigant, and indifference to the noble charter of the legal profession. – Honest endeavours and earnest efforts to conclude the proceedings with diligence and dispatch are not disclosed from the order-sheet. – The order-sheet of the case is equally a reflection and an indictment of the judicial process. – The court has ample powers to ensure that the process of law is not stalled by the dilatory tactics of any party. – The courts are not helpless and cannot be seen to be helpless. – Rule of law cannot be flouted or permitted to fail. – It is the obligation of this Court to ensure that the rule of law is upheld under all circumstances. – Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by issuing strict directions to decide the matter finally within a stipulated period of time. –
Result:Petition Disposed Of.
JUDGMENT :
1. This petition has been filed with the following prayer:
“A. To issue an appropriate order or direction to the learned District Judge, Ghaziabad (Prescribed Authority), to forthwith decide and conclude the proceedings of Arbitration Case No.903 of 2017 (Sahkari Awas Nirman Evam Vitt Nigam Ltd. Vs. Paresh Saxena) as expeditiously as possible and within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court without granting any unnecessary adjournments.
B. To issue an appropriate order or direction to the learned District Judge, Ghaziabad to forthwith decide the execution application in furtherance of the arbitral award filed in Execution Case No.59 of 2017 (Paresh Saxena Vs. Sahkari Awas Nirman Evam Vitt Nigam Ltd.) as expeditiously as possible and within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court without granting any unnecessary adjournments.”
2. Proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 taken out by the petitioner against the arbitral award dated 29.05.2017, rendered by the learned sole Arbitrator, came to be registered as Arbitration Case No.903 of 2017 (Sahkari Awas Nirman Evam Vitt Nigam Ltd. Vs. Paresh Saxena) before the learned District Judge, Ghaziabad.
3. After institution of the proceedings, the matter was first placed before the learned Presiding Officer on 24.08.2017 but no one was present and the case was posted for 04.09.2017. On 04.09.2017 no effective hearing could happen because the counsels abstained from work in pursuance of a strike call. On 12.09.2017, the counsels again abstained from work on account of strike call and the learned Presiding Officer did not proceed with the case. The case was thereafter posted before the learned Presiding Officer on 18.09.2017. Notices were issued to the petitioner on 18.09.2017. The order-sheet of the proceedings on 21.12.2017, 19.01.2018 and 21.03.2018, records that notices had not been served upon the petitioner. The order-sheet of 30.04.2018 and 29.05.2018 reveals that the petitioner had not been served with the notice. Consequently the respondent-Sahkari Awas Nirman Evam Vitt Nigam Ltd. was required to take fresh steps for service. The petitioner subsequently entered appearance, and tendered its objections to the application instituting the proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on 23.08.2018.
4. No hearing could take place on 23.08.2018 since the lawyers were abstaining from work on account of strike calls. The matter was again posted on 31.08.2018 and 07.09.2018 on which dates counsels were present. But the matter could not be taken up due to pre-occupation of the learned Presiding Officer. On 27.09.2018, again the counsels abstained from work due to strike call.
5. On 12.11.2018, 14.12.2018, 10.01.2019 and 20.12.2019, the learned Presiding Officer could not hold the court due to various reasons like being on training or on leave.
6. A perusal of the order-sheet on subsequent dates reveals these facts. The counsel for the respondent-Sahkari Awas Nirman Evam Vitt Nigam Ltd. was present on 01.02.2019, however, the petitioner was not present. On 04.04.2019 the respondent's pairokar was present, however, the petitioner was not present. On 30.08.2019, the respondent-Sahkari Avas Evam Vitt Nigam Ltd. was not present, however, petitioner's pairokar was present to prosecute the case.
7. An application registered as application 16-C submitted by the counsel for the respondent (Sahkari Avas Evam Vitt Nigam Ltd.), before the learned Presiding Officer for summoning of the records of the arbitration proceedings, was served upon the petitioner before the court below on 28.11.2018. Application registered as paper no.17-C was submitted by the petitioner in the court below on 21.02.2019, while the copies of the same were supplied to the learned counsel for the Sahkari Awas Nirman Evam Vitt Nigam Limited on 12.03.2019. Due to pre-occupation of the learned Presiding Officer in other matters, the aforesaid applications could no
