Supreme Court - Daily Orders
M/S Manish Trading Company vs Union Of India on 21 February, 2014
ö$
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2798 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.980 of 2008
M/S. MANISH TRADING CO. ...APPELLANT
versus
UNION OF INDIA ...RESPONDENT
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appellant has been aggrieved by an order dated 22nd November, 2006 passed in the Request Case No.21 of 2006 by the High Court of Judicature at Patna.
The said Request Case was filed by the appellant under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying for appointment of an Arbitrator. The said application was rejected on the ground that the appellant wanted to make an effort to put life into a stale claim which had been made by it against the respondent.
Upon hearing the learned counsel, we find certain undisputed facts as under:
The agreement with regard to contract between the appellant and the respondent had been executed in year 1990 and was terminated in the same year. The appellant had, thereafter, issued legal notice to the respondent for appointment of an arbitrator but no arbitrator had been appointed by the respondent. The appellant then had filed a Misc. Case No.8 of 1998 in the Court of Subordinate Judge-1, Katihar but the said application had been withdrawn under the orders dated 27th March, 2006 passed by the said court for the reason that during the pendency of the said application, this Court had decided M/s. S.B.P & Company v. Patel Engineering Ltd. and another (2005) 8 SCC 618 holding that the civil court had no jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator but the High Court had jurisdiction to appoint the same. In the circumstances, the appellant had filed Request Case No.21 of 2006 before the High Court.
In view of the aforestated undisputed facts, we are of the view that there was no delay on part of the appellant as the appellant had already moved the civil court in 1998 for appointment of an arbitrator.
It is also pertinent to note that the application filed by the appellant in the court of Subordinate Judge-1, Katihar was objected to by the respondent on the ground of delay but the said objection filed by the respondent had not been entertained by the civil court.
In the circumstances, we allow the appeal by quashing the impugned order passed by the High Court in Request Case No.21 of 2006 and direct that the Request Case shall be restored to its original file before the High Court and the same shall be decided at an early date. The appeal stands disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs.
..............................J [ANIL R. DAVE] ..............................J [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH] NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 21, 2014
ITEM NO.201 COURT NO.11 SECTION XVI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).980/2008 (From the judgement and order dated 22/11/2006 in RC No.21/2006 of The HIGH COURT OF PATNA) M/S MANISH TRADING COMPANY Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA Respondent(s) (With prayer for interim relief and office report) Date: 21/02/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH For Petitioner(s) Mr. Mohan Babu Agarwal, Adv.
for Mr. Debasis Misra, Adv. (N.P.) For Respondent(s) Mr. J. S. Attri, Sr. Adv.
Mr. N.k. Karhail, Adv.
Ms. S. K. Bajwa, Adv.
Ms. Priyanka B., Adv.
Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, Adv. (N.P.) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The Civil Appeal stands disposed of as allowed in terms of the signed order.
|(Jayant Kumar Arora) | |(Sneh Bala Mehra) |
|Sr. P.A. | |Assistant Registrar |
(Signed order is placed on the file)
-----------------------
4