ABHIJEET INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the identical issue arises in these miscellaneous civil applications, these applications are heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) In Miscellaneous Civil Application No.142/2012 order is dated 12.10.2012, in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.791/2012 order is dated 05.04.2013 and in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.1090/2012 order is dated 03.05.2013 by which, directions were issued to the applicants to deposit the process fees. In Miscellaneous Civil Application No.791/2012, both the parties have invoked Section 11 of the Act of 1996 arising out of same contract and the same arbitration clause between the parties. The Arbitrator has been, in fact, appointed by the consent of the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the parties, when inquired, referred the scheme for the "Appointment of the Arbitrator by Chief Justice of India Scheme, 1996 (published on 29.01.1996) which was in pursuance to sub Section 10 of Section 11 of the Arbitration Act. The relevant clause is Clause 12, which is reproduced as under:

(3.) The similar scheme is also framed by the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court, which is referred as Appointment of Arbitrators by the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court Scheme, 1996 (published on 06.04.1996), which was also in pursuance to subSection 10 of Section 11 of the Arbitration Act. The relevant clause is Clause 12, which is reproduced as under: