AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajiv Shakdher, J.—By virtue of the captioned petition, filed u/s 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act), read with various sections quoted in the petition, challenge is laid to the order dated 10.07.2012, passed by the arbitral tribunal (in short the tribunal). To be noted, the impugned order came to be passed by the tribunal on an application moved by the petitioner wherein, he sought a direction for keeping the arbitration proceedings in abeyance on account of allegations of fraud qua respondent no. 1, which was subject matter of a writ petition filed in this court by a group of the investors. This writ petition was numbered as WP(Crl.) 1589/2011.
It appears that respondent no. 1, which was the non-applicant before the tribunal qua the application referred to above, joined the request of the petitioner, to the extent that, in view of the allegation of fraud, the tribunal need not proceed with the matter. The tribunal has adverted to these aspects in paragraph 7 of the impugned order.
2.1 The tribunal was concerned with the fact that a copy of the said writ petition was not supplied, therefore, it could not on its own examine as to whether the allegations of fraud had substance; so as to enable it to come to a conclusion as to whether arbitration was the appropriate mechanism for adjudication of disputes between the parties before it.
2.2 The tribunal, having regard to the fact that the respondent was also of the view that the proceedings should not continue before it, closed the proceedings, giving liberty to the petitioner to either approach civil court or make a fresh application for arbitration under the bye-laws and regulations of National Stock Exchange; albeit in accordance with law.
2.3 It may be noted that, at that point in time, a petition, u/s 9 of the Act, being: OMP No. 216/2012, was pending adjudication in this court. Therefore, the tribunal indicated in the impugned order that the aforesaid liberty granted to approach the civil court or the tribunal will kick-in after the petition u/s 9 of the Act was disposed of in terms of the prayer made in that petition.
2.4 I am informed that prayer made in Section 9 petition was for supplying the petitioner certain reports and information; the details of which were set out in the said petition.
2.5 The said petition was disposed of by a short order, passed by this court, on 24.07.2012. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies against the impugned order of the tribunal dated 10.07.2012; albeit in accordance with law. The court also indicated in the very same order, that the relief sought for in Section 9 petition, could not be granted.
In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the petition and apply to the tribunal in terms of the direction contained in paragraph 8 of the impugned order; albeit in accordance with law. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of with liberty as sought for by the petitioner in terms of directions contained in the impugned order.