WONDERLAND PROPERTIES Vs. MOONLIGHT CONTINENTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act). Notice in this petition was issued on 12.12.2012. Since then the four respondents, arrayed as parties herein, have been served. The respondents have filed their replies and, rejoinders thereto, have also been filed. While respondent nos. 1 and 3 are represented by Mr Bajwa, there is no representation on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 4, at least today.

(2.) Mr Sapra, learned senior counsel, who appears for the petitioner, has submitted that the petition needs to be disposed of as delay in adjudicating this petition is delaying the adjudication of the principal cause. I tend to agree with him and, therefore, do not intend to wait for representation, by the other respondents.

(3.) In the course of arguments addressed by Mr Bajwa, who, as indicated above, represents respondent nos. 1 and 3, it has emerged that there are broadly, two objections which are taken by his clients as well as respondent nos. 2 and 4. The first objection is with respect to limitation as envisaged in clause 28 of the agreement obtaining between the parties, which is an agreement dated 02.05.2006. The argument in respect of this objection is, that the petitioner was required to invoke the arbitration mechanism within ten days of the cause of action arising, which having not been done, the right to trigger the arbitration mechanism, dissolved thereafter.