AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J.P. Singh, J.—Disputes pertaining to the 'Contract for supply of Meat dressed at Narian' sanctioned vide CD No. 29 of 1973-74, for the
period commencing from 03.05.1973 to 31st March, 1974, were referred to the Arbitration of Major General A.M. Sethna, General Officer
Commanding, 25 Inf. Division. His Award was, however, set aside by this Court on March 11, 1987. During the pendency of the Appeal
preferred against the order setting aside the Award, the Contractor died. Union of India's Appeal against the order setting aside of the Award, was
disposed of issuing directions for appointment of a new Arbitrator.
The Award made by the Arbitrator appointed pursuant to the directions of the Court, was again set aside by the Court allowing the Contractor's
Son's application u/s 30/33 of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration Act, 2002, referring the matter back to the Arbitrator.
In terms of the judgment dated 03.05.2010 of the Court, the Arbitrator is inter alia required to decide the extent of the property of the deceased
Contractor that had come to the hands of his legal representatives, while determining the dispute.
The petitioner, who is the son of the original Contractor has filed his Petition u/s 19 of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration Act, seeking
supersession of the reference on the ground that the dispute being old and the Award thereon having been set aside twice, the reference needs to
be superseded as the controversy as to the liability of the petitioner required its decision by a Civil Court rather than the Arbitrator.
I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties at the Motion hearing stage and am of the opinion that in terms of the order
passed by the learned Single Judge of the Court determining the petitioner's application u/s 30/33 of the Arbitration Act, the plea, on which the
petitioner seeks supersession of the reference, has been left to be determined by the Arbitrator to whom the matter stands referred afresh.
In this view of the matter, the plea of the petitioner, that the reference stood superseded because the Award had been set aside twice and the
dispute was old, cannot be entertained for fresh adjudication, for it stands impliedly determined against the petitioner, with the reference of the
disputes to the Arbitrator, who is, inter alia, required to decide the petitioner's liability, if any, as well.
The respondents' learned Counsel is thus right in saying that the petitioner's application was not maintainable. This application is, accordingly,
dismissed as nonmaintainable.