- (1.) Facts of the case leading to the present controversy may first be noticed. On 07-09-2017, an agreement was signed at Jaipur between the petitioner and the respondent No.1, whereby the latter had to provide 'Business Process Management Outsourcing Services' to the former at its campus located at Jaipur. A dispute arose between the parties regarding the fulfillment of the obligations contained in the agreement. Initially, on 19-07-2018, the petitioner lodged a First Information Report at Police Station Chandwaji, Jaipur against respondent No.1 alleging the breach of conditions of the agreement and subsequently, the respondent No. 1 filed a claim by way of e-mail before the respondent No. 2 for initiation of arbitration proceedings. Pursuant to the said request, a letter was issued by the respondent No. 2 stating that the arbitration proceedings shall be deemed to have begun on 04-04-2018 and in this regard, a Sole Arbitrator, namely, Shri Abhinav Chandrachud was appointed on 04-05-2018. The aforesaid Sole Arbitrator held the procedural hearing on 25- 07-2018 directing the respondent No. 1 to file his claim before 14- 08-2018. However, even after seeking several opportunities, the respondent No. 1 did not file the claim. Ultimately, vide order dated 11-10-2008, the aforesaid Sole Arbitrator recused himself from the arbitral proceedings. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 appointed respondent No. 3 Mr. Sitesh Mukherjee as the Sole Arbitrator on 21-01-2019. The newly appointed Sole Arbitrator passed the Procedural Order No. 1 dated 28-01-2019 and provided 21 days' time to the respondent No. 1 to file statement of claim alongwith the documentary evidence and the witnesses statements. This procedural timetable again was against the mandate of the statutory period stipulated by Section 29 A of the Arbitration and the Conciliation Act , 1996 (in short 'the Act of 1996'). The respondent No.1 filed its statement of claim after inordinate delay of more than 10 months from the commencement of the arbitral proceedings. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted its objections under section 16 of the Act of 1996 regarding the maintainability of the proceedings. The Sole Arbitrator without deciding the said application, issued the Procedural Order No. 3 dated 10-04-2019 and revised the schedule of proceedings against the provisions of the Act of 1996. Therefore, by filing the instant writ petition, a prayer is made to quash and set-aside the arbitration proceedings in question with a further prayer to direct the respondents Nos.2 and 3 not to proceed in the matter as their mandate stands terminated.
(2.) By order dated 27-05-2019, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had directed that the further proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal shall remain stayed. The said interim order is continuing.
(3.) On behalf the respondent No.1, a preliminary objection regrading lack of jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this writ petition was raised. To buttress his arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 argued that the arbitration was agreed to be conducted by the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (in short 'MCIA') in accordance with MCIA Rules of 2016. Accordingly, the arbitration proceedings were initiated by the MCIA in Mumbai. As a matter of fact, this Court situated at Jaipur has no jurisdiction to hear and decide this writ petition. It was also contended that the writ petitioner has already appeared before the Sole Arbitrator during the arbitral proceedings and also filed an application under Section 16 of the Act of 1996, alleging that the dispute cannot be resolved through arbitration. Therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to have moved this Court by filing the present writ petition. In support of his aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments in (i) BGS SGS SOMA JV vs NHPC Ltd ., 2019(17) SCALE 369, (ii) Brahmani River Pellets Ltd. vs Kamachi Industries : 2019(9) SCALE 818, and (iii) Indus Mobile Distribution Pvt. Ltd. vs Datawind Innovations Pvt. Ltd : (2017) 7 SCC 678.;