SIKH NEWSPAPER LIMITED Vs. D M JALANDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the counsel on either side. This court on 6/03/1990 passed the order as under:

(2.) I. A. Nos. 8-11/93 have been filed seeking direction to the District Magistrate, Jalandhar, or for that matter any other person, to restore the status quo with regard to the status of the applicant Shri Ratnesh Singh Sodhi as the Printer, Publisher and Editor in Chief of the Akali Patrika owned by Sikh Newspaper Ltd. and to restore status quo with regard to the same as on 16/4/1993 till a meeting of the share-holders of the Company (as decided by the Arbitrator) is held to determine the said issue.

(3.) An affidavit has been filed by Balraj Singh Takhar slating that he has settled down in States and he no longer is interested in pursuing the matter and that, therefore, he is entitled to withdraw from the contest and let the matter be closed. When the matter had come up before us on 27/11/1995, in view of the above statement, Shri R. P. Nariman, learned counsel who appeared for the second appellant in the main appeal had stated that in view of the consent of the parties for appointment of an arbitrator, namely, Shri Justice E. S. Venkataramiah, as he then was, and since the learned Judge had declined to act as an arbitrator, he requested appointment of a fresh arbitrator to pursue the direction issued by this court. At that stage, it was pointed out that since the court had no material before it as to who is to prosecute the arbitration proceedings and on whose behalf, it would be difficult to give such direction as sought for which reads thus: "learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent in the main matter and the applicant in this application stated that in view of the affidavit filed by Balraj Singh Takhar, son of Shri Banta Singh, appellant No. 2, that he does not wish to proceed further in the management of "daily Akali Patrika" and that since he has been prosecuting the proceedings and having been settled in U. S. A. , it would be difficult for him to proceed with the matter in India. Therefore, he stated that Shri Ratneshsingh Sodhi may Lie entrusted to function as printer, publisher and chief editor of the Patrika. Shri R. F. Nariman, learned counsel appearing for appellant No. 2 stated that earlier order passed by this court, inter alia, directed, by consent of the parties, appointment of an arbitrator and though Justice Venkataramiah, as he then was, was chosen by the parties to be an arbitrator, since the learned Judge had declined to act as an Arbitrator, a fresh Arbitrator needs to be appointed. Shri Sodhi, learned counsel appearing for the first appellant contended that he has instructions to state that the first appellant is wilting to have the matter settled by arbitration. We do not have any material on record as to who is intending to prosecute the arbitration proceedings and on whose behalf. Under these circumstances, we cannot give any directions except on filing of an affidavit by appropriate persons concerned and also by consent of all the parties. Shri Sodhi seeks for and is granted four weeks' time forfiling an affidavit. Post after four weeks. " Accordingly, Shri Sodhi, learned counsel had taken time to file an affidavit in that behalf. Now, an affidavit has been filed staling that the company is prepared to pursue the proceedings in the arbitration.