2.12.2010.
Smt. M.P.S.Chuckal, counsel for the applicant.
None for respondents.
By this application,the applicant is seeking review/recall of
the order dated 14.7.2006 passed by the Division Bench of this
Court in Misc.Appeal No.40 of 2001.
By the aforesaid order, this Court while deciding the matter
directed thus:
“6. In the present case as stated hereinabove the Court
while remanding the matter vide order dated 5.11.1998
fixed the date of hearing before the Arbitrator as
20.11.1998 and both the parties were directed to remain
present before the Arbitrator. On 20.11.1998 some of the
parties appeared but the Arbitrator was not available as he
was on official tour and the Reader fixed the date as
30.11.1998. Though the respondents were having
knowledge but as the date was fixed by the Reader the
Arbitrator ought to have noticed to the respondents when
they were not present on the next date. Thereafter
various applications were received by the Arbitrator for
grant of short adjournment. The order dated 5.11.1998
was challenged before the High Court and respondents
were expecting some orders from the High Court, and
were continuously sending letters to the Arbitrator. The
Arbitrator while turning down the aforesaid prayer ought to
have seen the fact that previous order sheets were written
by the Reader. Even after rejecting the prayer made by
the respondents in the aforesaid application an intimation
ought to have been sent to the respondents. In place of
adopting the aforesaid procedure the Arbitrator proceeded
in the matter and passed the exparte award. In these
peculiar facts the Court below has considered the matter
and found that the principles of natural justice has been
violated in the matter, has set aside the award and
remanded the case to the Arbitrator. Another aspect of
the matter is that the Arbitrator has not complied with the
remand order passed by the Court dated 5.11.1998. Even
for arguments it is assumed that respondents were having
knowledge in respect of date of hearing fixed, and after
proceeding exparte the Arbitrator ought to have decided
the matter in compliance of remand order, failing which the
Arbitration award itself was liable to be set aside, on this
ground. In the aforesaid circumstances if the Court below
has considered the aspect in both the perspective and
remanded the matter with an opportunity to the
respondents to appear and to participate in the
proceedings, no fault is found in the order.
7. This appeal against the aforesaid remand order has
no merit and accordingly it is dismissed. However, the
parties present herein are directed to remain present
before the Arbitrator on 21st of August, 2006 for which
date no notice shall be necessary to the parties by the
Arbitrator. Before the Arbitrator respondents shall remain
present on each and every date of hearing. The
Arbitrator shall decide the matter expeditiously after
complying the order passed by the Court below dated
2.12.2000 and also order dated 5.11.1998 passed in
previous round.”
It is submitted by Smt. Chuckal that by the aforesaid order
parties were directed to appear before the Arbitrator on 21st
August, 2006. Earlier the Managing Director of the applicant was
the Arbitrator under the agreement. It is submitted by Smt.
Chuckal that now this Madhya Pradesh Film Development
Corporation Limited has been merged with the Department of
Excise and there is no Managing Director of the Corporation. So,
for deciding the dispute, some independent arbitrator may be
appointed. It is suggested by Smt. Chuckal that a former Judge of
Madhya Pradesh High Court, Bench Gwalior may be appointed as
an arbitrator to decide the matter finally.
As none is appearing for the respondents, and we do not
find any reason not to accept the contention of Smt. Chuckal, the
counsel appearing for the applicant, hence prayer made in this
application is allowed.
Justice Shri R.B.Dixit, the former Judge of this Court, is
appointed as an Arbitrator, who shall proceed in the matter as per
order dated 14.7.2006 passed by this Court in M.A. No.40 of
2001. Necessary record of the Arbitration Proceedings shall be
transmitted by the applicant to the aforesaid Arbitrator. Office to
communicate this order to Justice Shri R.B.Dixit for necessary
action.
With the aforesaid direction, this MCC is finally disposed of
with no order as to costs.
Certified copy as per Rules.
( Krishn Kumar Lahoti ) (Mrs.Sushma Shrivastava)
Judge Judge
JLL