CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(1997) 01 P&H CK 0174

Union of India (UOI) and Others vs Mehar Singh and Sons

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 31 January 1997 · Citation: (1997) 116 PLR 509

HON’BLE JUDGES
H.S. Brar, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
C.R. No. 450 of 1997

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 337 words

H.S. Brar, J.—This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 17.12.1996 of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amritsar, vide which an Arbitrator has been appointed u/s 8(l)(a) of the Arbitration Act, 1940.

2.

I do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Amritsar particularly, when the appointment of an Arbitrator by the learned trial Court, has not been objected to by the petitioners-respondents. The relevant portion of the order of the learned Civil Judge is reproduced as under :

"The petitioner has submitted the list of panel of Arbitrators i.e.

1.

Shri K.D. Bali, Retired Director General, C.P.W.D., New Delhi.

2.

Shri C. Rama Rao, Retired Director General, C.P.W.D., New Delhi.

3.

S. Balbir Singh, Retired Director General, C.P.W.D., New Delhi

whereas the respondents have not filed any list of arbitrators. Moreover, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent has no objection if any of the person mentioned by the petitioner is appointed as arbitrator in this case. Accordingly, Shri K.D. Bali, Retired Director General C.P.W.D. New Delhi is appointed as arbitrator u/s 8(l)(a) of the Arbitration Act and he is directed to enter upon the reference and to make award within the period of four months from the receipt of the reference. Parties are directed to refer the claims and counter claims before the arbitrator, so appointed."

3.

In the impugned order it has been specifically stated that during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondents (petitioners in this petition) had no objection if any of the persons mentioned by the petitioner (respondent in this petition) was appointed as arbitrator in this case. This factual position has not even been rebutted. Neither any statement nor any affidavit of the counsel who appeared for the petitioners-respondents and gave his consent for appointment of an arbitrator by the Court, has been filed with this petition.

In these circumstances, there is no force in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.