- (1.) This company appeal filed under section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956, read with Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, essentially challenges the jurisdictional validity of the order dated 16.4.2014 passed by learned Single Judge appointing a new arbitrator [Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kant (Retd.)]in respect of some claim arising out of a contract between the respondent company and the appellant. The appellant has further assailed the order dated 7.12.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid company petition whereby the application for recall of the order dated 16.4.2014 is disposed of without modifying or altering the tenor of the order already passed on 16.4.2014.
(2.) Arbitral proceedings between the appellant and the respondent company relate as far back as to the year 1993 when regular suit no. 827 of 1993 came to be filed in the Court of II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Senior Division, Bulandshahr under the Arbitration Act, 1940 seeking some protection in accordance with Section 20 read with Section 41 (b) and the Second Schedule appended to Arbitration Act, 1940 as well as for appointment of Arbitrator. During pendency of the aforementioned arbitration proceedings, the company was declared as sick industrial unit in terms of Section 3 (1) (o) of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SICA'). The arbitration proceedings went up to the Supreme Court on the question of interim protection during currency of the proceedings before the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as the 'BIFR'). The proceedings before the BIFR failed, as a result whereof a reference came to be made before this Court under Section 20 (1) of SICA and this is how a company petition i.e. Company Petition No. 9 of 2014 came to be registered before the High Court at Allahabad. By an order dated 25.2.2003 passed by this Court at Allahabad, the matter came to be transferred to this Bench at Lucknow as the registered office of the respondent company was situated in Lucknow. The above order was passed for the limited purpose of initiating winding up proceedings of the company on the reference forwarded by the BIFR under Section 20 (1) of the SICA.
(3.) The respondent company, inter alia, filed Civil Misc. Application No. 889 of 2003 in the company petition mentioned above, wherein it was prayed that a new arbitrator be appointed in place of Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. L. Loomba (Retd.) who passed away leaving the arbitration proceedings between the respondent and the appellant as undecided. The record reveals that official liquidator attached to the High Court also filed an application praying that the recommendations made by the BIFR be accepted and winding up orders be passed so that official liquidator may step into the management of the affairs of the company.;