UNION OF INDIA Vs. CHOUDHARY GOKUL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A request has been made for adjournment of the matter on the ground that Shri Manish Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioners, is busy in other Court. It is hardly a ground for adjournment of the matter as this is an old matter and is pending hearing for admission. Otherwise also in case the counsel for the petitioner is busy in some other Court he is required to make alternative arrangements.

(2.) Having heard the learned counsel for the respondent and perusing the order of the learned trial Court I am satisfied that the petitioners have acted contrary to what it is propagated by them. The Union of India is giving out that as far as possible the matters should be decided by arbitration. Special Act has been enacted, conferences are being held and the message is sought to be given to get their disputes resolved by arbitration. But, in the Courts the Union of India and its Officers are acting contrarily to what they propagated which is clearly borne out from the facts of this case.

(3.) The respondent filed in the Court below an application Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of the Arbitrator, as despite of giving notice by him to the petitioners, the same has not been appointed. The only objection of the limitation has been raised by the petitioner and rightly the learned trial Court held that it can be taken before the Arbitrator and he will decide the same. The learned trial Court has not committed any illegality muchless any material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in directing the petitioners to appoint the Arbitrator who shall decide the matter after taking the evidence of both the parties on all the points including the point of limitation if raised by the petitioner before him.