FUTURE METAL PRIVATE LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN MR. NAVEEN SRIRAM Vs. STCL LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these review petitions are disposed of by this common order. The parties will be referred to as per their ranking in the original petition.

(2.) THE matter arises in the following manner: The petitioner - Company is a subsidiary of STC of India Limited, which is a Government of India undertaking and comes under the Ministry of Commerce and Trade. In the year 2005, the petitioner had contacted the respondent to facilitate the metal scrap trade business through M/S. Wealth Solutions. There was a dispute inter se between the petitioner and the respondent in relation to certain terms of the agreement. Hence, notices were exchanged between the petitioner and the respondent and both of them did not agree upon the name of an Arbitrator. Hence, the petitioner filed an application before this Court in C.M.P. No. 40/2009 and the connected matter. The matter was heard and this Court, having regard to the terms of the contract as well as the dispute inter se between them accepted the petition and appointed a sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. A reference was entered and a contention was taken by the respondent after the claim statement was filed by the petitioner to the effect that the dispute inter se between the petitioner as well as the respondent would involve substantial evidence, having regard to the allegations of fraud, mis -representation etc. The respondent requested the Arbitrator to defer the matter so that necessary clarification can be had by the Court as to whether the arbitral proceedings could be continued in the present situation having regard to the charges of fraud, mis -representation etc. Hence, the present, review petitions are filed.

(3.) PER contra Mr. Poovayya, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently submit that a perusal of the petition does not indicate that there is any averment as to the fraud and the malpractice stated to have been committed by the respondents. Even otherwise, he submits that an affidavit would be filed by the petitioners in this Court subjecting themselves to the arbitral proceedings giving up the contentions with regard to the fraud and serious malpractice on the part of the respondents and confine the claim only on the basis of the claim statement filed before the Arbitrator without even remotely suggesting that a fraud has been committed. Another contention raised by him is that a review petition itself is not maintainable under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure having regard to the fact that once the order is passed by this Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the question of reviewing the order does not arise having regard to the provisions as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act. Hence, it is not open for this Court to review its own order having regard to the explicit language of Section 11(6) of the Act.