IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Arbitration Application No. 25 of 2009
(M/s M.K. Chatterjee Vrs. M/s Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi)
With
Arbitration Application No. 26 of 2009
(M/s M.K. Chatterjee Vrs. M/s Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi)
With
Arbitration Application No. 27 of 2009
(M/s M.K. Chatterjee Vrs. M/s Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi)
With
Arbitration Application No.28 of 2009
(M/s M.K. Chatterjee Vrs. M/s Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi)
With
Arbitration Application No.29 of 2009
(M/s M.K. Chatterjee Vrs. M/s Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi)
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH TATIA
------
For the petitioner: M/s. A.K. Sahni (In all matters)
For the Respondent: M/s Amit Kumar Das (In all matters)
------ Dated 6th May, 2011
Prakash Tatia, J Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. In these arbitration applications the petitioner is seeking
appointment of arbitrator under Sub-clause 4 of Section 11 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. All these matters are
decided together in view of the fact that the petitions have a
common fact. The fact of the first case is taken into consideration
as the facts of other cases are also similar.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
an agreement was executed between the parties on 15.3.1977. In
the agreement, the petitioner was supposed to complete the work
within nine months. However, according to the petitioner, the work
was completed in the year 1996. The petitioner then tried to get the
matter settled but he could not get it. Hence, in the year 1996 he
submitted an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act
which was dismissed by the Civil Court vide order dated 30.4.2004
on the ground that the petition submitted under Old Act was not
maintainable. Then, the petitioner served a notice upon the
respondent in 2009 i.e. on 20.4.2009 and now has approached this
Court for appointment of an arbitrator.
4. From the facts stated above, it is clear that it is a stale claim
which has already become barred by time as admitted in the facts
stated in the petition itself and lastly the Civil Court also dismissed
the petition of the petitioner filed under the Old Act of 1940 as
would appear from the order dated 3.04.2004 and it is also
admitted that, thereafter, the petitioner served a notice upon the
respondent for appointment of arbitrator in the year 2009 i.e. after
five years. Hence, it was a stale claim, barred by time also and no
dispute survived at the time of issuance of notice by the petitioner
to the respondent.
5. In view of the above reasons and non-involvement of
disputed questions of fact and there being no plea of extension of
time because of any acknowledgment of debt which could have
been within a period of limitation itself, these arbitration applications
deserve to be dismissed as having no live dispute between the
parties. The applicant’s claim is absolutely misconceived. There is
no live dispute and the applications are barred by time as per the
pleadings of the petitioner itself.
6. All arbitration applications are, accordingly, dismissed.
(Prakash Tatia, J.)
Alankar/Sudhir