- (1.) IN this petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a prayer is made for vacating an order passed on a previous petition under Section 9 of the Act at the instance of the respondents herein or their predecessors-in-interest.
(2.) THE original parties to the relevant agreement contemplated the development of a property at Ripon Street. THE petitioner herein is the owner of the property. THE predecessors-in-interest of the respondents herein or the first respondent herein was to be the developer under the agreement. THE existence of the arbitration clause in the agreement is beyond dispute and has not been questioned. It appears that in the previous petition of the developer, an initial order was passed on June 28, 1999 directing status quo as on that date to be maintained with regard to the property in question for a period of a fortnight. Whether or not such order was extended is not clear, but is not relevant at the moment since by an order dated July 19, 2000, such previous petition under Section 9 of the 1996 Act, AP No.206 of 1999, was disposed of and an order in terms of prayer (c) thereof was made. Prayer (c) of that petition, if the word "mandatory" therein is disregarded, provided for an injunction restraining the owner from dealing with or disposing of or parting with possession or transferring the property at 106, Ripon Street in any manner whatsoever without the leave of Court. There is some dispute between the present parties as to whether the order dated July 19, 2000 was passed upon consent or on contest, but it may be presumed for the present that the order was passed on consent. The petitioner herein says that the order by which the owner was restrained from dealing with the property was subject to the outcome of the reference, but instead of expediting a decision in the reference, the developer took steps to put the matter into cold storage in an attempt to cause prejudice to the owner. It is evident from the order dated July 19, 2000 that the owner had volunteered that an arbitrator may be appointed by Court. The connected request under Section 11 of the 1996 Act, AP No. 404 of 1999, was, accordingly, directed to be placed before the Chef Justice. 3
(3.) ON August 10, 2000, the Chief Justice disposed of the request by appointing a retired judge of this Court as the arbitrator. The order also contained a direction- it is not necessary to see whether such a direction was warranted or was within the jurisdiction - that the reference be concluded within four months of the date of "filing of the claims and counter claims." The developer thereafter sought to raise same issue before the arbitrator as to the arbitrator's competence. Those were the days prior to the larger constitution Bench judgment in Patel Engineering when the law as recognised in the last in the series of Rani Construction cases ruled the field. The developer carried the objection to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution and let the matter linger thereafter. Notwithstanding the judgment in Patel Engineering, no immediate steps were taken by the developer in the matter and it was only in December, 2011 that the impediment to the continuation of the reference was removed upon the order obtained by the developer challenging the reference being vacated. The parties report that the reference has resumed and the next date fixed is April 10, 2012.;