{"id":243570,"date":"2009-02-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arbitration-case-no-80-of-2006-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-27-february-2009"},"modified":"2017-03-01T20:29:58","modified_gmt":"2017-03-01T14:59:58","slug":"arbitration-case-no-80-of-2006-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-27-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arbitration-case-no-80-of-2006-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-27-february-2009","title":{"rendered":") Arbitration Case No. 80 Of 2006 vs Union Of India Represented By The … on 27 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
) Arbitration Case No. 80 Of 2006 vs Union Of India Represented By The … on 27 February, 2009<\/div>\n
Arbitration Case No. 80 of 2006          [ 1]\n\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT\n               CHANDIGARH\n\n\n1)                              Arbitration Case No. 80 of 2006\n                            Date of decision: February 27, 2009\n\nM\/s Bhagwan Dass & Sons, through Shri Sudesh\nKumar son of Shri Bhagwan Dass, it s partner,\n179, The Mall, Ambala Cantt.                         ...Petitioner\n\n                 Versus\n\nUnion of India represented by the Garrison\nEngineer, Air Force, Ambala Cantt.\nand other                                            ...Respondents<\/pre>\n
2)                              Civil Revision No. 3888 of 2006\n\nM\/S Bhagwan Dass & Sons.                             ...Petitioner\n\n               Versus\n\nUnion of India and another.                          ...Respondents\n\n\n\n3)                              Arbitration Case No. 84 of 2006\n\nM\/s Unique Construction co. 1024, Subhash\nStreet, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda through\nits partners                                          ...Petitioner\n\n               Versus\n\nUnion of India and others                            ...Respondents\n Arbitration Case No. 80 of 2006          [ 2]\n\n\n4)                            Arbitration Case No. 47 of 2007\n\nM\/s Precto Engineers 188-B Industrial\nArea-I, Chandigarh through its Partner               ...Petitioner\n\n           Versus\n\nPunjab State Electricity Board through the\nChief Engineer\/ MM The Mall Patiala                  ...Respondents\n\n\n\n\n5)                            Arbitration Case No. 48 of 2007\n\nM\/s Precto Engineers 188-B Industrial\nArea-I, Chandigarh through its Partner               ...Petitioner\n\n           Versus\n\nPunjab State Electricity Board through the\nChief Engineer\/ MM The Mall Patiala                  ...Respondents\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE<\/p>\n
Present: Mr. S.K.S. Bedi, Advocate
\n         for appellant in Arbitration Case No. 80 of 2006
\n         Mr. Ashwini Bansal , Advocate
\n         for respondents in Arbitration Case No. 80 of 2006<\/p>\n
         Mr. S.K.S. Bedi, Advocate
\n         for appellant in C.R. No. 3888 of 2006
\n         Mr. Ashwini Bansal , Advocate
\n         for respondents in C.R. No. 3888 of 2006<\/p>\n
         Mr. D.K.Singal, Advocate
\n         for appellant in Arbitration Case No. 84 of 2006
\n         Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate
\n Arbitration Case No. 80 of 2006            [ 3]<\/p>\n
         for respondents in Arbitration Case No. 84 of 2006<\/p>\n
         Mr. P.S.Rana, Advocate,
\n         for appellant in Arbitration Case No. 47 of 2007
\n         Mr. Sunil Kaushik, Advocate
\n         for respondents in Arbitration Case No. 47 of 2007<\/p>\n
         Mr. P.S.Rana, Advocate,
\n         for appellant in Arbitration Case No. 48 of 2007
\n         Mr. Sunil Kaushik, Advocate
\n         for respondents in Arbitration Case No. 48 of 2007<\/p>\n
T.S.THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE<\/p>\n
         A common question of law arises for consideration in all<\/p>\n
these petitions filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and<\/p>\n
Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’). The<\/p>\n
question precisely is whether the appointment of an Arbitrator by the<\/p>\n
respondents in each one of these cases after the filing of the present<\/p>\n
petitions is legally valid? While the respondents argue that the<\/p>\n
appointments    are   valid,   the   petitioners   contend   that   such<\/p>\n
appointments are of no legal consequence as the same were made<\/p>\n
after the authority competent to make the appointment had forfeited<\/p>\n
its right to do so. Reliance, in support of that submission, is placed<\/p>\n
upon the decisions of the Supreme Court to which I shall presently<\/p>\n
refer. Suffice it to say that the validity of appointments already made<\/p>\n
is the only impediment in the grant of the prayers made by the<\/p>\n
petitioners and in the making of fresh appointments in each one of<\/p>\n
these cases.\n<\/p>\n
         In Arbitration Case No.80 of 2006 and so also in all the<\/p>\n
connected petitions being disposed of by this order, the existence of
\n Arbitration Case No. 80 of 2006         [ 4]<\/p>\n
an Arbitration Clause providing for adjudication of disputes between<\/p>\n
the parties is not denied. It is also not denied that a demand for<\/p>\n
reference of disputes to the Arbitrator was made on 30.12.2002 in<\/p>\n
Arbitration Case No.80 of 2006. Upon failure of competent authority<\/p>\n
to make such an appointment an Arbitration application under<\/p>\n
Section 11(6) of the Act was filed before the Civil Judge (Senior<\/p>\n
Division), Ambala on 17.2.2003, which upon transfer to this Court<\/p>\n
has been registered as Arbitration Case No.80 of 2006. The<\/p>\n
Arbitrator appointed by the competent authority, in the meantime,<\/p>\n
appears to have entered upon the reference and started proceedings<\/p>\n
but since the petitioners did not participate in the proceedings on<\/p>\n
account of the petitions filed by it for reference of disputes to an<\/p>\n
independent Arbitrator, the said proceedings were terminated by the<\/p>\n
Arbitrator. That order of the Arbitrator was challenged by the<\/p>\n
petitioner before the Additional District Judge in a petition under<\/p>\n
Section 34 of the Act, who declined the prayer holding that the<\/p>\n
appointment of Arbitrator made by the competent authority was<\/p>\n
valid. The order passed by the Additional District Judge has been<\/p>\n
assailed in Civil Revision No.388 of 2006 by the petitioners, which<\/p>\n
too has been heard alongwith these petitions and shall stand<\/p>\n
disposed of by this order.\n<\/p>\n
          In Arbitration Petitions No. 47 and 48 of 2007 also, a<\/p>\n
demand for reference of the disputes to an Arbitrator in terms of the<\/p>\n
clause appearing in the agreement, executed between the parties,<\/p>\n
was made on 28.3.2007 and 2.4.2007 respectively. On the failure of<\/p>\n
the competent authority to make an appointment in terms of the<\/p>\n
agreement, the petitioners filed the said petitions in this Court on
\n Arbitration Case No. 80 of 2006           [ 5]<\/p>\n
24.5.2007. An Arbitrator was, however, appointed by the competent<\/p>\n
authority on 12.9.2007 in both the cases. The validity of that<\/p>\n
appointment is under challenge in these proceedings as noticed<\/p>\n
earlier.\n<\/p>\n
           The position is no different in Arbitration Case No.84 of<\/p>\n
2006 in which a demand for appointment of the arbitrator was made<\/p>\n
by the petitioner on 20.12.2004. The failure of the competent<\/p>\n
authority to make an appointment, led to the filing of the said petition<\/p>\n
under Section 11 of the Act in the Court of Civil Judge at Bhatinda in<\/p>\n
March, 2005, which was later transferred to this Court in terms of the<\/p>\n
decision of the Supreme Court in SBP & Co. Vs. Patel Engineering<\/p>\n
Company Limited and Others 2005(8) SCC 618 and registered as<\/p>\n
Arbitration Case No.84 of 2006. An appointment of Arbitrator was,<\/p>\n
however, made by the respondents on 26.6.2006. The petitioners’<\/p>\n
case is that the contract between the parties in that case was signed<\/p>\n
at Bhatinda and although a reference has been made by the<\/p>\n
respondents for adjudication of the disputes between the parties, the<\/p>\n
same has been restricted to a claim of Rs.8,24,690\/- only.<\/p>\n
Reference of the remainder of the claims made by the petitioners has<\/p>\n
been refused on the ground that the said claims are based on<\/p>\n
excepted matters, which are not arbitrable.\n<\/p>\n
    I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable<\/p>\n
length and perused the record.\n<\/p>\n
           The legal position as regards the power of a party<\/p>\n
designated to make an appointment of an Arbitrator to do so after the<\/p>\n
filing of the petitions under Section 11 of the Act stands<\/p>\n
authoritatively decided by a series of decisions rendered by their
\n Arbitration Case No. 80 of 2006           [ 6]<\/p>\n
Lordships’ of the Supreme Court. The first of these decisions was<\/p>\n
delivered in Datar Swithchgears Ltd. Vs. Tata Finance Ltd. and Anr.<\/p>\n
(2000)8 SCC 151. The Court was in that case examining whether<\/p>\n
there was any time limit applicable to cases filed under Section 11(6)<\/p>\n
of the Act as was the position in cases filed under Section 11(4) and<\/p>\n
11(5) thereof. Answering the question in the negative, the Court<\/p>\n
observed that in so far as cases filed under Section 11(6) of the Act<\/p>\n
were   concerned,    no   time   limit   was     statutorily   prescribed.<\/p>\n
Consequently, if one party demands that the opposite party should<\/p>\n
appoint an arbitrator but the opposite party does not make an<\/p>\n
appointment within thirty days, the power to make an appointment is<\/p>\n
not lost after the expiry of 30 days. The appointment of an Arbitrator<\/p>\n
made even after 30 days of the demand would remain valid provided<\/p>\n
the party demanding the appointment of the Arbitrator had not, in the<\/p>\n
meantime, moved the Competent Court under Section 11 of the Act.<\/p>\n
It is only in cases where the party demanding the appointment of an<\/p>\n
Arbitrator has moved the court under Section 11 of the Act, that the<\/p>\n
power to make an appointment is forfeited by the party competent to<\/p>\n
make such an appointment under the agreement. The following<\/p>\n
passage is in this regard apposite:-\n<\/p>\n
                       “So far as cases falling under Section 11(6)<\/p>\n
           are concerned — such as the one before us — no time<\/p>\n
           limit has been prescribed under the Act, whereas a period<\/p>\n
           of 30 days has been prescribed under Section 11(4) and<\/p>\n
           Section 11(5) of the Act. In our view, therefore, so far as<\/p>\n
           Section 11(6) is concerned, if one party demands the<\/p>\n
           opposite party to appoint an arbitrator and the opposite
\n Arbitration Case No. 80 of 2006           [ 7]<\/p>\n
           party does not make an appointment within 30 days of<\/p>\n
           the demand, the right to appointment does not get<\/p>\n
           automatically forfeited after expiry of 30 days. If the<\/p>\n
           opposite party makes an appointment even after 30 days<\/p>\n
           of the demand, but before the first party has moved the<\/p>\n
           court under Section 11, that would be sufficient. In other<\/p>\n
           words, in cases arising under Section 11(6), if the<\/p>\n
           opposite party has not made an appointment within 30<\/p>\n
           days of demand, the right to make appointment is not<\/p>\n
           forfeited but continues, but an appointment has to be<\/p>\n
           made before the former files application under Section 11<\/p>\n
           seeking appointment of an arbitrator. Only then the right<\/p>\n
           of the opposite party ceases. We do not, therefore,<\/p>\n
           agree with the observation in the above judgments that if<\/p>\n
           the appointment is not made within 30 days of demand,<\/p>\n
           the right to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) is<\/p>\n
           forfeited.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Datar Swithchgears (Supra) was followed by the Apex Court in<\/p>\n
Punj Lloyd Ltd. Vs. Petronet MHB Ltd. (2006) 2 SCC 638. That too<\/p>\n
was a case in which a similar question arose, which a three Judge<\/p>\n
Bench of the Supreme Court answered relying upon the earlier<\/p>\n
decision of their Lordships in Datar Switchgears Ltd. case (supra).<\/p>\n
To the same effect is the decision of their Lordships in Union of India<\/p>\n
and another Vs. M\/s V.S Engineering (P) Ltd., 2007(1) RCR (Civil)<\/p>\n
293 where the Court reiterated the legal position stated in the case<\/p>\n
of Datar Switchgears Ltd. case (Supra) and held:-\n<\/p>\n
 Arbitration Case No. 80 of 2006           [ 8]<\/p>\n
           “However, before parting with this case we may also<\/p>\n
           observe that Railways and Public institutions are very<\/p>\n
           slow in reacting to the request made by a contractor for<\/p>\n
           appointment    of   the   arbitrator.   Therefore,   in   case<\/p>\n
           appointment is not made in time on the request made by<\/p>\n
           the contracting party, then in that case the power of the<\/p>\n
           High Court to appoint arbitrator under Section 11 of the<\/p>\n
           Act will not be denuded. We cannot allow administrative<\/p>\n
           authorities to sleep over the matter and leave the citizens<\/p>\n
           without any remedy. Authorities shall be vigilant and their<\/p>\n
           failure shall certainly give rise to cause to the affected<\/p>\n
           party. In case, the General Manager, Railway does not<\/p>\n
           appoint the arbitral tribunal after expiry of the notice of 30<\/p>\n
           days or before the party approaches the High Court, in<\/p>\n
           that case, the High Court will be fully justified           in<\/p>\n
           appointing arbitrator under section 11 of the Act. It is the<\/p>\n
           discretion of the High Court that they can appoint any<\/p>\n
           railway officer or they can appoint any High Court Judge<\/p>\n
           according to the given situation.”\n<\/p>\n
     Reference may also be made to the decision of the Supreme<\/p>\n
Court in Union of India Vs. Bharat Battery Manufacturing Co.(P)<\/p>\n
Ltd., 2007(3) Arbitration Law Reporter, 282, where again the Court<\/p>\n
declared that once a party filed an application under Section 11(6) of<\/p>\n
the Act, the other party forfeits its right to appoint an arbitrator in<\/p>\n
terms of the agreement. Reliance was placed by their Lordships
\n Arbitration Case No. 80 of 2006           [ 9]<\/p>\n
upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Datar Switchgears Ltd.<\/p>\n
case (supra) and Punj Lloyd Ltd. case (supra). The Court held that<\/p>\n
the appointment of the sole arbitrator after a petition under Section<\/p>\n
11(6) of the Act had been filed was invalid as the right to make such<\/p>\n
an appointment ceased after the aggrieved party had approached the<\/p>\n
Court seeking the appointment of an arbitrator. The Court observed:-<\/p>\n
           “As already noticed, the respondent filed Section 11(6)<\/p>\n
           petition on 30.03.2006 seeking appointment of an<\/p>\n
           arbitrator.   The appellant,   thereafter, said to have<\/p>\n
           appointed one Dr. Gita Rawat on 15.05.2006 as a sole<\/p>\n
           arbitrator, purportedly in terms of Clause 24 of the<\/p>\n
           agreement. Once a party files an application under<\/p>\n
           Section 11(6) of the Act, the other party extinguishes its<\/p>\n
           right to appoint an arbitrator in terms of the clause of the<\/p>\n
           agreement thereafter. The right to appoint arbitrator<\/p>\n
           under the clause of agreement ceases after Section 11(6)<\/p>\n
           petition has been filed by the other party before the court<\/p>\n
           seeking appointment of an arbitrator. “<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     On behalf of the respondents, reliance was placed upon the<\/p>\n
decision of the Supreme Court in Ace Pipelines Contracts (P) Ltd.<\/p>\n
Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. (2007) 5 Supreme Court Cases<\/p>\n
304. The contention was that the decision rendered by the Supreme<\/p>\n
Court in Datar Switchgears Ltd. case (supra) and Punj Lloyd Ltd.<\/p>\n
case (supra) had not found favour with their Lordships in the said<\/p>\n
case. The law declared in Ace Pipelines Contracts (P) Ltd case
\n Arbitration Case No. 80 of 2006           [ 10]<\/p>\n
(supra) , argued the learned counsel, permitted the appointment of<\/p>\n
arbitrators even beyond the period of 30 days stipulated for such<\/p>\n
appointments under Section 11(4) and 11(5) of the Act in cases filed<\/p>\n
under Section 11(6) thereof. The appointments made in the cases at<\/p>\n
hand could not, therefore, be faulted on the ground that the same<\/p>\n
were beyond the period stipulated by the statute. I regret my inability<\/p>\n
to accept that contention. I have carefully gone through the decision<\/p>\n
rendered in Ace Pipelines Contracts (P) Ltd ( supra) but find it<\/p>\n
difficult to accept the legal position has been stated differently from<\/p>\n
what has been stated in the case of Datar Switchgears Ltd. case<\/p>\n
(supra) and affirmed in Punj Lloyd Ltd. case (supra). Apart from the<\/p>\n
fact that Punj Lloyd Ltd. case (supra) is a decision by a three Judge<\/p>\n
Bench of the Supreme Court, which affirmed the view taken in Datar<\/p>\n
Switchgears Ltd. case (supra), I am of the view that the proposition<\/p>\n
of law stated in the said two decisions remains unaltered by the<\/p>\n
decision of their Lordships in Ace Pipelines Contracts (P) Ltd<\/p>\n
( supra). As noticed earlier, the legal position as stated in Datar<\/p>\n
Switchgears Ltd. case (supra) and affirmed in Punj Lloyd Ltd. case<\/p>\n
(supra) is that although the period of 30 days stipulated in terms of<\/p>\n
Section 11(4) and 11(5) of the Act has no application to cases under<\/p>\n
Section 11(6) of the Act and although an appointment under Section<\/p>\n
11(6) of the Act could be made even after the expiry of 30 days, yet<\/p>\n
the power to do so is forfeited by the party concerned once the<\/p>\n
aggrieved party demanding the appointment of an arbitrator<\/p>\n
approaches the Court under Section 11(6) of the Act. There is<\/p>\n
nothing in Ace Pipeline’s case that can constitute a divergent view so
\n Arbitration Case No. 80 of 2006            [ 11]<\/p>\n
far as forfeiture of the right of the party to make an appointment by<\/p>\n
filing of the petition under Section 11(6) of the Act is concerned. I<\/p>\n
have, in that view, no hesitation in holding that the appointments<\/p>\n
made in the cases in hand after the filing of the petition under<\/p>\n
Section 11(6) of the Act are nonest in the eyes of law and would not<\/p>\n
prevent the appointment of independent arbitrators by this Court.<\/p>\n
That being the position, the failure of the petitioner in Arbitration case<\/p>\n
No.80 of 2006 to appear and participate in the proceedings before<\/p>\n
the Arbitrator, the termination of the arbitration proceedings by the<\/p>\n
latter on that ground and the order passed by the Additional District<\/p>\n
Judge in proceedings under Section 34 of the Act, holding the<\/p>\n
appointment to have been properly made must also be rendered<\/p>\n
inconsequential. If the appointment itself was nonest in the eyes of<\/p>\n
law, the Additional District Judge before whom the same was<\/p>\n
challenged in the proceedings under Section 34 of the Act was not<\/p>\n
justified in holding otherwise. Civil Revision No.388 of 1986 filed by<\/p>\n
the petitioner in the said case challenging the order of the Additional<\/p>\n
District Judge must also consequentially succeed.<\/p>\n
   That brings me to the argument that the filing of a petition under<\/p>\n
Section 11(6) of the Act in a Court, which was not competent to<\/p>\n
entertain the same would not result in forfeiture of right to make an<\/p>\n
appointment. In Arbitration Case No.84 of 2006, the aggrieved party<\/p>\n
had approached the Court of Civil Judge at Bhatinda in terms of 11<\/p>\n
(6) of the Act, which Court, according to the respondents, had no<\/p>\n
jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Consequent upon the decision of<\/p>\n
the Supreme Court in Patel Engineering Company Limited case
\n Arbitration Case No. 80 of 2006             [ 12]<\/p>\n
(supra) and with the transfer of the case from the Court of Civil<\/p>\n
Judge, Bhatinda to this Court, the question of jurisdiction of the Civil<\/p>\n
Court to entertain the petition under Section 11(6) of the Act is in my<\/p>\n
opinion rendered academic. The petition under Section 11(6) of the<\/p>\n
Act filed by the petitioner must be deemed to have been presented in<\/p>\n
the Court of competent jurisdiction especially when the agreement<\/p>\n
between the parties, which contain the arbitration clause relied upon<\/p>\n
by the petitioner, was executed at Bhatinda. Since the appointment<\/p>\n
of the arbitrator in that case was also made after the filing of the said<\/p>\n
petition, the same too is nonest in the eyes of law.<\/p>\n
       In the result, I allow Arbitration Case Nos. 80, 84 of 2006 and 47<\/p>\n
and 48 of 2007. I also allow Civil Revision No.388 of 2006 and set<\/p>\n
aside the order dated 10.12.2005 passed by the Additional District<\/p>\n
Judge and appoint Justice Bakhshish Kaur as an Arbitrator in all the<\/p>\n
cases to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties, and make<\/p>\n
an award in each one of them. The Arbitrator shall be free to fix her<\/p>\n
fee.\n<\/p>\n
       The parties shall through their respective counsel appear before<\/p>\n
the Arbitrator on 28th March, 2009 at 3.00 P.M. for further directions.<\/p>\n
February 27, 2009                                    ( T. S. THAKUR )\n`Kalra'                                                CHIEF JUSTICE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court ) Arbitration Case No. 80 Of 2006 vs Union Of India Represented By The … on 27 February, 2009 Arbitration Case No. 80 of 2006 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1) Arbitration Case No. 80 of 2006 Date of decision: February 27, 2009 M\/s Bhagwan […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-243570","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\n) Arbitration Case No. 80 Of 2006 vs Union Of India Represented By The ... on 27 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arbitration-case-no-80-of-2006-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-27-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\") Arbitration Case No. 80 Of 2006 vs Union Of India Represented By The ... on 27 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arbitration-case-no-80-of-2006-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-27-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-02-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-01T14:59:58+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arbitration-case-no-80-of-2006-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-27-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arbitration-case-no-80-of-2006-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-27-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\") Arbitration Case No. 80 Of 2006 vs Union Of India Represented By The … on 27 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-01T14:59:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arbitration-case-no-80-of-2006-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-27-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2701,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arbitration-case-no-80-of-2006-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-27-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arbitration-case-no-80-of-2006-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-27-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arbitration-case-no-80-of-2006-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-27-february-2009\",\"name\":\") Arbitration Case No. 80 Of 2006 vs Union Of India Represented By The ... on 27 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-01T14:59:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arbitration-case-no-80-of-2006-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-27-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arbitration-case-no-80-of-2006-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-27-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arbitration-case-no-80-of-2006-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-27-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\") Arbitration Case No. 80 Of 2006 vs Union Of India Represented By The … on 27 February, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":") Arbitration Case No. 80 Of 2006 vs Union Of India Represented By The ... on 27 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arbitration-case-no-80-of-2006-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-27-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":") Arbitration Case No. 80 Of 2006 vs Union Of India Represented By The ... on 27 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arbitration-case-no-80-of-2006-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-27-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-01T14:59:58+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arbitration-case-no-80-of-2006-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-27-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arbitration-case-no-80-of-2006-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-27-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":") Arbitration Case No. 80 Of 2006 vs Union Of India Represented By The … on 27 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-01T14:59:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arbitration-case-no-80-of-2006-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-27-february-2009"},"wordCount":2701,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arbitration-case-no-80-of-2006-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-27-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arbitration-case-no-80-of-2006-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-27-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arbitration-case-no-80-of-2006-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-27-february-2009","name":") Arbitration Case No. 80 Of 2006 vs Union Of India Represented By The ... on 27 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-01T14:59:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arbitration-case-no-80-of-2006-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-27-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arbitration-case-no-80-of-2006-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-27-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arbitration-case-no-80-of-2006-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-27-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":") Arbitration Case No. 80 Of 2006 vs Union Of India Represented By The … on 27 February, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/243570","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=243570"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/243570\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=243570"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=243570"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=243570"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}