LAKME LTD Vs. PLETHICO PHARMACEUTICALS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. S.C. Bagdia, Sr. Counsel instructed by Mr. Pankaj Bagdia, Mr. D. Chabda and Mr. G. Chabda, Counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Y.I.,Mehta, with Shri H.Y. Mehta, Counsel for respondent 1. The service of notice of hearing of this revision petition has been dispensed with so far other respondents are concerned as they are arbitrators.

(2.) This revision revolves around a subtle point which needs to be decided by this Court not for the purpose of solving the controversy between contesting litigants but for the purpose of regulating a procedural course for guidance of subordinate courts for dealing with such matters which may corne before them in future.

(3.) The cause started when the ball of thinking started rolling by the order passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Indore by his order dated 18.9.1999. On that date the senior "advocate appearing for petitioner Shri Bagdia, made a proposal that the trial Court should formulate the points for determination and thereafter may take a decision whether the parties should adduce oral evidence or evidence by way of affidavits. The said proposal was opposed by the Counsel appearing for Respondent 1 by making a submission that no such procedure has been prescribed in the provisions embodied in Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as new Arbitration Act for convenience). Learned Judge seems to have rejected the prayer, suggestion or proposal to formulate the points for determination, however permitted the parties to adduce the evidence by way of affidavit. That order prompted the petitioner to file a revision petition before this Court for getting their grievance redressed and for getting the procedure laid down for dealing with such situation. At this juncture it is necessary to point out that the counsel appearing for Respondent 1 has attempted to bottle neck this petition on the point of admissibility, by pointing out that the trial Court has not rejected the prayer made by the petitioners because no prayer was made by the petitioners by filing an application. It has been also submitted by the counsel appearing for Respondent 1 that trial Court has in fact permitted the petitioners to adduce the evidence by way of affidavits; however, the petitioners did not file the affidavits but picked up the path of filing the revision petition. At this juncture it would be. necessary to point out that the petitioners were given time to file the affidavit til! 11.10.1999 and the revision petition has been filed on 12.10.1999. It impliedly means that the petitioners, which is a public Limited Compnay, must have been thinking of putting a challenge to the said order by consulting its legal cell; thereafter the office of Shri S.C. Bagadia, its senior advocate which resulted in presentation of present revision petition on 12.10.1999. It.js also pertinent to note at this juncture that there has been an order on 11.10.1999 which shows, that no affidavits were presented before trial Court from both sides.