SHARMA PUBLICATIONS PVT. LTD. Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In order to resolve the arbitral dispute arisen between the parties as per the arbitration agreement, the Secretary, Department of School Education was appointed as arbitrator and the matter was referred to him, but the learned Arbitrator - Secretary of the School Education Department by order dated 6-1-2006 dropped the proceeding holding that it is not possible to settle the dispute between the parties i.e. the applicant and the State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT) and thereby closed the arbitration proceeding. The applicant aggrieved against that order, filed W.P.No.2211/2006 before this Court and this Court by order dated 15-1-2009, set aside that order of the Arbitrator and remitted the matter to the Sole Arbitrator (Secretary, Department of School Education) for passing award in accordance with law. It is the case of the applicant that from 15- 1-2009 till 13-3-2009, the Arbitrator did not proceed with the hearing of the arbitration proceeding and on 13-3-2009, lodged a first information report against the applicant i.e. the Director of M/s. Sharma Publications Pvt. Ltd., for non-encashment of bank guarantee for which offence under Sections 422, 468, 471 and 477-A of the IPC in Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur in which he has applied for anticipatory bail, which was ultimately granted. It was found that now, the Secretary, School Education Department cannot adjudicate the dispute on account of lapse on his part in not continuing the arbitration proceeding and having lodged FIR and ultimately, the applicant filed this application for termination of the mandate of the Arbitrator as well as for appointment of substitute Arbitrator.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that since no action was taken by the named Arbitrator from 15-1-2009 despite the order of this Court and having lodged FIR against the applicant, the mandate of the Arbitrator shall stand terminated and a substitute Arbitrator be appointed by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 14(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act of 1996') and any person other than the named arbitrator be appointed to adjudicate the dispute.

(3.) Learned State counsel would submit that the order of the writ court inter se is binding between the parties and after remand notice has been issued to the applicant on 7-4-2015 for proceeding with the arbitration, the applicant did not join and therefore the arbitration proceeding could not be proceeded with.