DARSHANA Vs. SAJJUMON. A. V.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this O.P.(ATE) invoking Sec. 29 A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein after referred to as the 'Act of 1996 ').

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that notwithstanding the fact that she is neither a proper party nor a necessary party to an ongoing arbitration proceeding numbered as ARC No.1 of 2024 before an Arbitrator appointed by this Court, she had been, vide an order dtd. 27/5/2024 in I.A.No.3 of 2024 in the said ARC impleaded as the additional 2nd defendant in the said proceedings. Petitioner has challenged the said order of impleadment by filing M.A.(Arb) No.101 of 2025 before the Commercial Court, Ernakulam, which is presently pending consideration. A stay petition numbered as I.A. No.1 of 2025 has also been filed by her in the said proceeding. Petitioner is aggrieved that while the said stay petition is pending, the learned Arbitrator is rushing through with the arbitration proceeding, and the same now stands posted for evidence. Though the petitioner apprised the learned Arbitrator about the pending challenge, the petition filed by her in the said respect has been dismissed inter alia, pointing out that a time-bound disposal is an avowed mandate. This O.P. (ATE) is thus filed by the petitioner invoking Sec. 29 A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the following reliefs:

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents.