RAMAN FEEDMILLS Vs. JAPFA COMFEEED INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, petitioner seeks recall of the order dated 24th August, 2013 passed by the designate of the Chief Justice under section 6 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 allowing arbitration application filed by the respondent and appointment of an arbitrator.

(2.) Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned designate of the Chief Justice, the review petitioner filed Special Leave Petition. By an order dated 24th January, 2013 Supreme Court recorded the submission made by the applicant that though issue was specifically raised in the pleadings before this Court in the affidavit in reply filed by the applicant in the proceedings filed under section 11, that application filed by the respondent under section 8 in the suit filed by the petitioner was pending and thus no such order could be passed by the learned designate of the Chief Justice under section 11. It was submitted that this objection of the applicant was not noticed in the said order passed by the learned designate Judge under section 11(6) of the Act. Supreme Court granted liberty to the petitioner to seek review of the order passed by the learned designate Judge of the Chief Justice and permitted the petitioner to withdraw the Special Leave Petition. Pursuant to the said liberty granted by the Supreme Court, review petitioner filed this review petition.

(3.) Mr.Shah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made two submissions (1) even if cause of action has arisen at Pune, application for appointment of the arbitrator under section 11(6) of the Act ought to have been filed before the appropriate court at Pune and not before the Chief Justice of this Court at Bombay and (2) in view of the application of the respondent under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 having been filed in the suit filed by the petitioner and the same being pending, application under section 11(6) of the Act before the Chief Justice of this court is not maintainable. Inspite of the objections raised by the review petitioner, in the affidavit in reply in this proceedings, the objections was not noticed by the learned designate Judge of the Chief Justice and has erred in appointing arbitrator under section 11(6) of the Act.