ARB No. 280 of 2018 (O&M)

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

234

ARB No. 280 of 2018 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 15.11.2022

G.M.FABRICATORS

.....Petitioner

Vs

RAMA INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ORS

.....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH

Present:

Mr.S.S.Narula, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr.Rahul Sharma, Advocate

for respondent No.1.

****

RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral)

CM No.14493-CII-2022

This is an application for placing the additional

documents i.e. Annexures P-7 to P-15 on record of this case.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has no

objection to the aforesaid application.

In view of above, this application is allowed.

Additional documents are taken on record.

ARB No. 280 of 2018

The present petition has been filed under Section

ANITA DEVI

2022.11.18 17:25

I attest to the accuracy and

autenticity of this

jugejumenmt\order

ARB No. 280 of 2018 (O&M)

2

11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short <the

Act=) for appointment of an Arbitrator.

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for

the petitioner submits that keeping in view the amount involved,

sole abitrator be appointed in place of Arbitral Tribunal. Perusal

of the record would show that the respondent No.1 is a limited

company and was declared as a Sick Industrial Unit as per the

scheme of <The Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions)

Act, 1985. The petitioner is one of the creditors and its name

was shown in column No.6 of the list i.e. Sundry Creditors for

Services with due amount of Rs.10.58 lacs. The scheme of

creditors was published in terms of Section 18 of the Act and the

same was approved vide order dated 30.09.2013. The petitioner

is a normal creditor and was entitled to 25% of its claim. On

calculation, an amount of Rs.2,64,419.75 paise has been

credited to the account of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner has accepted the aforesaid amount of Rs.2,64,419.75

paise under protest. Initially, Arbitral Tribunal comprising of Mr.

J.S.Ahluwalia (Retd. Air Comdr.), Mr.C.S.Baweja and

Mr.K.Deshmukh was constituted to decide the dispute between

the parties.

Out of the aforesaid three Arbitrators,

Mr.K.Deshmukh did not participate in the arbitration proceedings.

The award was passed by the remaining two arbitrators. The

said award was challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration

ANITA DEVI

2022.11.18 17:25

I attest to the accuracy and

autenticity of this

jugejumenmt\order

ARB No. 280 of 2018 (O&M)

3

and Conciliation Act, 1996. Since the objection petition has

been accepted by the Additional Distrct Judge, therefore, the

only issue pending between the parties is to get an arbitrator

appointed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted

that initially the objections filed by the respondent No.1 were

dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala on

18.09.2012. Respondent No.1 remained unsuccessful before

the High Court in FAO No.5989 of 2012, which was dismissed on

09.11.2012. Respondent No.1 filed SLP (C ) No.8523 of 2013

and that was ultimately converted into Civil Appeal No.5410 of

2015 and was allowed vide order dated 13.07.2015 .

Learned counsel for both the parties agree that

restoration of objection petition was the real intention of the order

dated 13.07.2015 and that was in fact implemented also before

the Additional District Judge, Patiala, when the Additional

District Judge, Patiala took cognizance of the objection petition

on merits and accepted the same in favour of respondent No.1

vide order dated 06.02.2017.

In view of the aforesaid order dated 06.02.2017, the

case has been remanded back to the Arbitrator. Owing to

inaction in appointing the third arbitrator, the present petition

came to be filed by the petitioner.

The factual matrix of the case are not in dispute. All

the pleas can be raised before the Arbitrator.