SUNIL KUMAR SEN Vs. SUBHAM CONSTRUCTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a prayer is made for vacating an order passed on a previous petition under Section 9 of the Act at the instance of the respondents herein or their predecessors-in-interest.

(2.) THE original parties to the relevant agreement contemplated the development of a property at Ripon Street. THE petitioner herein is the owner of the property. THE predecessors-in-interest of the respondents herein or the first respondent herein was to be the developer under the agreement. THE existence of the arbitration clause in the agreement is beyond dispute and has not been questioned.

(3.) ON August 10, 2000, the Chief Justice disposed of the request by appointing a retired judge of this Court as the arbitrator. The order also contained a direction- it is not necessary to see whether such a direction was warranted or was within the jurisdiction - that the reference be concluded within four months of the date of "filing of the claims and counter claims." The developer thereafter sought to raise same issue before the arbitrator as to the arbitrator's competence. Those were the days prior to the larger constitution Bench judgment in Patel Engineering when the law as recognised in the last in the series of Rani Construction cases ruled the field. The developer carried the objection to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution and let the matter linger thereafter. Notwithstanding the judgment in Patel Engineering, no immediate steps were taken by the developer in the matter and it was only in December, 2011 that the impediment to the continuation of the reference was removed upon the order obtained by the developer challenging the reference being vacated.