WEST BENGAL HOUSING BOARD Vs. SATELLITE CONSTRUCTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is to consider an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arising out of the order dated 27.03.2002 passed by Sri Udayan Mukherjee, learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Durgapur in connection with Miscellaneous Case No. 3 of 2001.

(2.) Mr. Dipak Basu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits before me that on consent of both the parties arbitration proceeding was extended from time to time upto 7.12.2000. But thereafter the petitioner did not participate in the arbitral proceeding as the term of arbitration had since expired. Mr. Basu has also argued before me that after filing the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner obtained an order of stay of all further proceedings of the case pending before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Durgapur. Mr. Basu has also drawn my attention to the prayers in the Miscellaneous Case before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Durgapur. In the said case the declaration that the mandate of the Arbitrator stood terminated on 7.12.2000 alternatively the mandate of the Arbitrator ought to be terminated because of gross delay and/or neglect to proceed with the said reference and failure to discharge the functions as Arbitrator was prayed for. It is pointed out by Mr. Basu that the learned Civil Judge was pleased to dismiss the suit by the order impugned. Mr. Basu then argues before me that as there was no provision for appeal against the impugned order, the petitioner has preferred the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is also pointed out by him that by the impugned order the learned Civil Judge directed the Arbitrator to complete the proceeding within three months which was beyond the jurisdiction of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Durgapur. In this connection Mr. Basu has referred to the ratio decided in the case of K.H.G. Rasool v. B.I. Mehsania & Ors. (AIR 2000 Bombay 424). I shall discuss this case at the appropriate point of time.

(3.) Mr. S.S. Singha Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. submits before me that even after the Miscellaneous Case was dismissed with the direction upon the Arbitrator to complete the proceeding within a stipulated period the petitioner had participated in the reconciliation and at that time at the instance of the petitioner the venue of arbitration was changed. It is also pointed out by the learned advocate for the O.P. That the present petitioner was the respondent before the Arbitrator. As regards the Bombay case cited by the learned advocate for the petitioner, the learned advocate for the O.P. submits before me that the decision of that case was made on the ground of undue delay at the instance of the Arbitrator himself. Mr. Singha Roy has also cited some case laws in this connection which I shall discuss later on.