AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present appeal has been preferred under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the judgment dated 18.12.2020 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Jalore, in Civil Case No. 68/2013 (CIS No. 220/2016) whereby learned District Judge allowed the application preferred under Section 34 of the Act of 1996.
The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that appellants and respondent entered into an agreement on 28.07.2010 (Agreement No. 7/2010-11). Vide agreement dated 28.07.2010, a work order was allotted to the respondent for construction work related to Bandi Sandhara Irrigation Project for RD 1437. The amount agreed to be paid was Rs. 38,62,671/-. The respondent- Contractor halted the work on several occasions and, therefore, failed to complete the allotted work and on account of which, the appellants withdrew the work order on 01.06.2012. An application was preferred by the respondent-Contractor as per Clause 23 of the Agreement entered into between the parties for reference of the dispute before the empowered Standing Committee on 04.07.2012. Vide order dated 19.07.2012, the matter was referred to the Standing Committee by the appellant No.3. There were other proceedings which were undertaken by the respondent-Contractor for the appointment of an Arbitrator in the present case. In the meanwhile, the Standing Committee dismissed the application of the Contractor vide order dated 24.04.2013. The respondent challenged the same by way of a writ petition before this Court which was dismissed vide order dated 01.10.2013 on the ground of efficacious and alternative remedy available to the petitioner. The respondent- Contractor preferred an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the learned District Judge, Jalore. The said application was allowed by the learned District Judge, Jalore vide judgment dated 18.12.2020 quashing the order dated 24.04.2013 passed by the empowered Standing Committee and remanded the matter back to the empowered Standing Committee to re-examine the same after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties and to decide the same in accordance with law.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have assailed the validity of the order dated 18.12.2020, solely on the ground that the order dated 18.12.2020 cannot be passed by the learned District Judge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as there is no provision for appointment of an Arbitrator in the present case and the order of the empowered Standing Committee dated 24.04.2013 cannot be construed as an order passed by the Arbitrator. She further submits that the respondent has an alternative remedy under Clause 51 of the Agreement to approach the Civil Court against the order of the empowered Standing Committee dated 24.04.2013. She fairly submits that vide order dated 18.12.2020, the empowered Standing Committee was given the liberty to re-examine the issue involved and pass a reasoned order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties. She only submits that the order passed by learned District Judge under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act cannot be treated as precedent as it will create complications for the Department in other pending cases. She fairly agrees that the examination/adjudication of the matter before the appropriate legal forum as per Clause 51 of the Agreement may borne same result as recorded by the learned District Judge in the impugned order dated 18.12.2020.
I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and this Court is of the view that although the respondent has incorrectly chosen to file the proceedings before the District Court under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 as the same should have been initiated as per Clause 51 of the Agreement before the appropriate legal forum but the fact of the matter is that the learned District Court examined the matter on merit and only remanded the matter back to the Standing Committee to re-examine the same on merit strictly in accordance with law.
The matter is pending adjudication before the High Court and the District Court for a pretty long time. Yet the same has not attained finality. Therefore, this Court feels that relegating the matter for a de novo proceeding as per Clause 51 of the Agreement will prolong the decision in this case. Thus, the ends of justice will be met if the case is remanded back to the empowered Standing Committee in light of the order passed by the learned District Judge dated 18.12.2020 to be decided afresh at the earliest strictly in accordance with law. It is made clear that this order shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case as the same has been passed considering the facts and circumstances of this particular case.
In view of the discussion made above the order dated 18.12.2020 passed by the learned District Judge, Jalore does not call for any interference by this Court.
The appeal stands disposed of in the terms above.