AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prafulla C. Pant, J.—This Special appeal, preferred under Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of Rules of Court, 1952 (applicable to Uttarakhand High Court) is directed against the judgment and order dated 8m of July 2008 passed by Hon''ble the Chief Justice of this Court in Arbitration Petition No. 25 of 2006 along with Delay Condonation Application No. 6401 of 2008.
Brief facts of the case are that a petition before Hon''ble the Chief Justice was moved by the Petitioner / Appellant u/s 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator. After hearing the parties, the said petition was dismissed, vide impugned order dated 8-7-2008, by Hon''ble the Chief Justice on the ground that the Petitioner (Appellant) had surrendered to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court by filing a suit.
On behalf of the Respondent, Sri Sudhir Kumar, advocate raised a preliminary objection that this appeal is not maintainable before this Court. In this connection our attention is drawn to the case of S.B.P. and Company v. Patel Engineering Ltd. 2005 (10) SBR 454. Having gone through the principle of law laid down in the said referred case, we are of the view that the special appeal under the Rules of Court, 1952, is not maintainable before this Court as the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in aforesaid case in para 46 (concluding para) has clearly directed that:
Since an order passed by the Chief Justice of the High Court or by the designated Judge of that Court is a judicial order, an appeal will lie against that order only under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to the Supreme Court.
The aforesaid direction has been issued in a case which has arisen out of a petition u/s 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The said judgment is clearly applicable to the present case.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that the impugned order is a composite order as the Petitioner (present Appellant) had moved also a petition u/s 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as such the appeal is maintainable. We are of the view that the petition u/s 9 of the said Act is maintainable only before the Civil Court not before Hon''ble the Chief Justice. As such merely for the reason that an application was moved u/s 9 of the Act along with the petition u/s 11(6) of the Act, in our opinion, it does not make the difference.
For the reasons as discussed above, we are of the view that this appeal is not maintainable before this Court and as such the appeal along with the delay condonation application is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. Accordingly the same is dismissed.