Altaf Hussain Sidiqi vs Sidco And Another

I have heard Mr M. Y. Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sajad Ashraf, GA, learned counsel for the respondents on this application seeking directions to the Arbitrator who was earlier appointed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

The applicant has pointed out that disputes arose between the parties with regard to a lease deed dated 23rd September, 1988, which contains an arbitration clause 24, which reads as under:

“24/ That in case of any dispute between the parties arising out of this lease deed or touching any clause of the deed the same shall be referred to arbitration of Managing Director J&K SIDCO whose decision shall be final and binding upon the parties.”

Arbitration proceedings were initiated by the Managing Director of the respondents on the motion of the applicant. Claims and counter claims were filed before the Arbitrator—Managing Director, SIDCO. It appears that the matter was at the stage of adducing evidence but unfortunately before the arbitration proceedings could be completed and award pronounced, the Managing Director was transferred. The then General Manager, who assumed the charge of the Managing Director did not conduct the arbitration proceedings. A letter dated 28th March, 2012, was sent to the applicant to the effect that the new Managing Director has refused to act as an Arbitrator in the matter on the ground that he was defending the case on behalf of the SIDCO.

In the aforesaid background, the present application has been filed seeking directions to the Managing Director, SIDCO, to conclude the arbitration proceedings and pronounce the award in terms of Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Mr Sajad Ashraf, learned counsel for the respondents, has contended that the petitioner is guilty of delay in filing the application. The respondents have assailed the entitlement of the applicant on the merits of the case as well. However, it is not disputed that the arbitration proceedings were pending before the Managing Director who came to be transferred when the same was at the evidence stage.

The applicant has also placed before this Court, the communication received from the respondents that the subsequent Managing Director has refused to conduct the proceedings on the ground that he had been defending the case against the petitioner. In this background, no fault can be attributed to the applicant for the proceedings having remained inconclusive.

I am informed by the parties that, Mr. Ravinder Kumar, has recently taken over as the Managing Director of the SIDCO and there is no impediment in case a direction goes to the present Managing Director to take over the arbitration proceedings in the matter from the stage Mr Irfan Yasin, earlier Arbitrator, left the same.

It is, accordingly, directed that Mr Ravinder Kumar, Managing Director, SIDCO, shall take over the arbitration proceedings and proceed in the matter from the stage the earlier arbitrator has left the same.

It shall be for the respondents to obtain the complete record of the arbitration proceedings conducted by the earlier Arbitrator and handover the same to the present Arbitrator—Managing Director SIDCO, enabling him to expeditiously proceed in the matter and ensure that the proceedings are completed within a period of six months from the date parties appear before him.

In view of the submission of the respondents, the arbitration record may have been destroyed in the floods of September, 2014, both the parties are directed to facilitate the arbitrator in reconstruction of the arbitration record.

The parties shall appear before the arbitrator on 16th March, 2020 at 4.30 PM.

This application is allowed of in the above terms.