STATE OF M.P. Vs. UDAI PRATAP SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 17.2.2014 passed by Seventh Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Case No. 34/2012/Arbitration.

(2.) SHRI Shekhar Bhargava, learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner filed an application under section 151 of CPC, read with rule 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Rules, 1997 (for brevity, the "Rules") for seeking stay of the proceedings before the court below, which is illegally rejected by impugned order.

(3.) SHRI Shekhar Bhargava, learned senior counsel submits that there was a difference of opinion amongst the Judges of Supreme Court in two cases [ : (2006) 11 SCC 245 (Centrotrade Minerals & Metals Inc. Hindustan Copper Ltd.)] and [ : (2012) 3 SCC 495 (Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority and another vs. L.G. Chaudhary Engineers and Contractors)]. He submits that the matter in dispute in said cases was referred to Larger Bench. The decision of Larger Bench is yet to come. At present, there is no binding judgment which holds the field. Putting it differently, it is argued that awaiting constitution and decision of Larger Bench, the issues involved in the matter before the trial court are not covered by any binding judgment of Supreme Court. Thus, the court below should have allowed the application, Annexure P -3, and should have kept the matter in abeyance till the decision of Larger Bench of the Supreme Court. In alternatively, it is argued that the court below should have referred the question before this Bench of High Court for its decision. It is submitted that the court below has erred in rejecting the said application.