Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 2728
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
DIVYA PHARMACY A BUSINESS UNDERTAKING OF DIVYA YOG MANDIR TRUST – Appellant
Versus
AUM SANGHRALAYA SITUATED – Respondent
ARBAP 87 / 2023
SL. No
Date
Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
2 1 .0 2 .2 0 2 5
1 ARBAP No. 87 of 2023 H on ’ble G. N a r e n da r , C.J. . Sri Ashut osh Thakral, learned counsel for t he pet it ioner. 2. Case is called. Heard t he learned counsel for t he pet it ioner. 3. There is no represent at ion on behalf of t he respondent s. The respondent s were first represent ed on 16.08.2024. On t hat dat e, t he m at t er was adj ourned t o 06.09.2024, as t im e t o file obj ect ions was sought on behalf of t he respondent s. On 06.09.2024, t he m at t er was adj ourned t o 13.09.2024, as respondent s sought m ore t im e t o file obj ect ions. Again, on 13.09.2024, on t he request of t he respondent s’ counsel, t he m at t er was adj ourned t o 27.09.2024, and again on 27.09.2024 t he m at t er was adj ourned t o 08.11.2024 on t he request of t he respondent s’ counsel. The m at t er was re- list ed on 07.01.2025, and as t here was no represent at ion on behalf of t he respondent s, t his Court ordered t hat , in t he event , t here is no represent at ion on behalf of t he respondent s on t he next dat e of hearing, t he m at t er would be heard and disposed of, and t hereaft er, t he m at t er was re- list ed on 20.02.2025, and as t here was no represent at ion on behalf of t he respondent s, t he m at t er was list ed for t oday. Even t oday, t here is no represent at ion on behalf of t he respondent s. Hence, t he m at t er is being t aken up for considerat ion. 4. The respondent s have even not replied t o t he dem and not ice dat ed 25.08.2023, invoking Condit ion No. 48 of t he agreem ent pert aining t o set t lem ent of disput es. 5. Learned counsel for t he pet it ioner would t ake t he
Court t hrough t he Agreem ent dat ed 05.10.2017 execut ed at Haridwar, Ut t arakhand. He would furt her t ake t he Court t hrough Condit ion No. 48 of t he Agreem ent , which reads as under : “48. Disputes – a. If any dispute arises between the parties at any time in connection with the validity, interpretation, implementation or alleged material breach of any provision of this agreement, the parties shall endeavour to settle such dispute amicably. b. In case of such failure the dispute shall be referred to the Trustees of DIVYA PHARMACY or its Nominee in accordance with the provisions of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. c. The venue for the arbitration proceeding shall be at Haridwar, Uttarakhand and the language of arbitration shall be English and/or Hindi. d. The award passed by the Arbitrators) shall be final and binding on both the parties.” 6. By t he said condit ion, t he Trust ees of t he pet it ioner- com pany have been nom inat ed as Arbit rat or. I n view of t he law declared by t he Hon’ble Apex Court in t he case of Pe r k in s Ea st m a n Ar chit e ct s D PC a nd a not he r vs. H SCC ( I ndia ) Lim it e d, ( 2 0 2 0 ) 2 0 SCC 7 6 0 , persons wit h vest ed int erest in t he disput e are not ent it led t o arbit rat e t he said disput es. The law declared by t he Hon’ble Apex Court is squarely applicable in t his case also. 7. I n t hat view of t he m at t er, t his Court hereby nom inat es and appoint s ret ired Judge of t his Court Sri Just ice ( Ret d.) Lokpal Singh t o ent er upon and arbit rat e t he disput es bet ween t he part ies, and pass an award. 8. The Regist ry is direct ed t o com m unicat e t his order t o Sri Just ice (
