- (1.) The appellant-Society is aggrieved of the dismissal of the objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as '1996 Act'), whereby, the award dated 16.06.2012 passed by the Arbitrator was sought to be set aside on various grounds, including the ground that the order appointing the Arbitrator was not passed by the competent Court. Mr. A.K.Chopra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Harminder Singh, Advocate submits that application under Section 11 of 1996 Act was filed on 29.11.2002 before the Civil Judge, Chandigarh, when the scheme was invoked. During the interregnum, notification dated 17.09.2003 came and as per the said notification/scheme, the District Judge had jurisdiction to entertain the application for appointment of the Arbitrator in case, the claim is less than Rs. 25 lacs and in case, more than Rs. 25 lacs, Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court. The Civil Judge, vide order dated 13.12.2003 appointed the Arbitrator. He further submits that there are certain other arguments vis-a-vis awarding of compensation by the Arbitrator but at the moment, he confines his argument vis-a-vis jurisdiction of the order appointing the Arbitrator. The award of the Arbitrator is silent with regard to various objections and one of the objection was regarding his jurisdiction and the same has been negated on the ground that appellant failed to take objection before the Civil Judge. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in State of Haryana and others vs. District Judge, Chandigarh and others, 2005 4 RCR(Civ) 664 to contend that identical situation arose in the aforementioned judgment and this Court after examining the same held that Civil Judge and District Judge lack jurisdiction in considering and entertaining the application under Section 11 of 1996 Act. The matter ought to have been referred to the competent Court of law as per the notification dated 17.09.2003. Mr. Anil Kumar Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/contractor submits that notification/scheme dated 17.09.2003 does not have retrospective application, much less, no objection was taken before the Civil Judge vis-a-vis the appointment of Arbitrator and therefore, the appellant is estopped to raise objection in the appeal filed under Section 37 of 1996 Act. He further submits that though the appellant had taken the objection before the Arbitrator but Arbitrator refused to entertain the objection as he had been appointed in pursuance to the order passed by the Civil Judge. He further submits that objections were not falling within the parameters of Section 34 of 1996 Act and rightly so, have been dismissed. He also submits that judgment aforementioned does not apply to the present case in view of the observations given in paragraph 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book and of the view that there is substance in the appeal. For the sake of brevity, few paragraphs of the judgment rendered by this Court in State of Haryana's case dealing with the facts, as well as, the ratio decidendi culled out would be essential and necessary to be extracted and the same read thus:-
(2.) Briefly stated, the material facts, giving rise to the present petition are as follows : On 3.7.1998, an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and respondent No. 2, whereby the said respondent agreed to become the approved party for computerised facilities management and consultancy, designing, creation, maintenance and continuous change of internet website for Haryana State Lotteries for the period from 3.7.1998 to 2.7.1999. The period was extended by another one year. It appears that some disputes arose between the said parties. Accordingly, invoking clause 37 of the arbitration agreement, respondent No. 2, vide letter dated 4.4.2002 and 28.6.2005, requested respondent No. 4, the persona designata, to adjudicate upon the disputes. Having failed to get any response from the said respondent, within 30 days, the said respondent filed an application under Section 11 of the Act before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh on 23.8.2002, for appointment of an independent Arbitrator, on the plea that respondent No. 4 had forfeited his right to arbitrate in the matter.
(3.) The application was contested by the petitioner. Issues were thus, framed by the Civil Judge and evidence was led by both the parties before him. However, before the application could be disposed of by the Civil Judge on 17.9.2003 a notification was issued by the Chief Justice, Punjab and Haryana High Court, whereby in suppression of the earlier scheme, published on 19.12.1996, a fresh scheme under the Act was framed. Paragraph 3 of the said scheme provided that request for appointment of Arbitrator, wherein the value of the subject-matter did not exceed 25 lac rupees shall be dealt with by the District Judge, whereas the request for appointment of Arbitrator involving the subject-matter exceeding 25 lac rupees shall be dealt with by the Chief Justice himself or he may designate any Judge of the High Court for this purpose, by a general or special order.;