- (1.) The present case has chequered history. One Industrial Plot No.121, in Industrial Estate, Dundahera (now Udyog Vihar), Phase-I, Gurgaon was allotted to the petitioner on 21.7.1977. An agreement was executed between the petitioner and Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation-Respondent No.1 on 20.10.1977. In terms of the agreement, the petitioner was to complete the construction within years and to commence production within a period of 3 years from the date of the allotment of the plot. Said agreement also contained an arbitration clause. As per the said clause any disputes or differences arising out of or in any way touching or concerning the agreement were required to be referred to the sole arbitration of the nominee of Secretary to Government of Haryana, Industries Department.
(2.) The allotment in favour of the petitioner was cancelled on 23.6.1981 and the plot resumed. Soon after the resumption the plot was re-allotted to Respondent No.2 on 15.12.1981. The petitioner herein filed a Civil Suit challenging the said resumption order. An application was filed by respondent No.1 herein under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short the Act) for the stay of the proceedings in view of the arbitration clause. Vide order dated 16.5.1985, the learned Trial Court allowed the application filed by respondent No.1 and stayed further proceedings. The appeal against the said order was dismissed on 22.7.1985. To resolve the dispute between the parties Shri B.L.Tanwar, IAS was appointed as arbitrator but before he could proceed in the matter, Shri Tanwar retired. On 5.9.1988 Shri Y.P.Raheja, IAS, was appointed as an arbitrator. Even the said Arbitrator did not enter into the reference and did not proceed further with the arbitration. On 14.8.1991, the petitioner filed CWP No. 14870 of 1991 before this Court challenging the resumption order dated 23.6.1981. The said writ petition was disposed of on 27.9.1991 with the following order: "Learned counsel for the petitioner expressly stated before us that the petitioner consented to the appointment of the Arbitrator in pursuance of Annexure P.5. The Secretary, Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, is hereby directed to appoint an Arbitrator who shall proceed to decide the matter expeditiously as much delay has already been caused. The petition is accordingly disposed of."
(3.) In compliance with the above directions of this Court, Shri J.M.Sethi, Advocate, was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator so appointed made and published the award dated 27.8.1993. In terms of the said award, the resumption of the plot vide order dated 23.6.1981 was found illegal and was set aside. The petitioner, thereafter, moved application dated 25.9.1993 under Section 14 read with Section 17 of the Act for directing the learned Arbitrator to file the award in Court to make it rule of the Court. Objections were filed by Respondent No.1 under Section 30 of the Act but the learned Trial Court dismissed the objections on 20.11.1995 and made the award dated 27.8.1993 as rule of the Court. Respondent No.2, who was allotted plot on 15.12.1981, was not impleaded as party to such proceedings. In appeal by Respondent No.1 before the learned District Judge, Chandigarh, Respondent No.2 was impleaded as party on her application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.;