SUNIDHI FINVEST LTD. Vs. MUKESH KUMAR AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application to set aside an order dated 19th July, 2012. This order was passed by the Honourable The Chief Justice in exercise of his lordship's jurisdiction under Sec. 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 . At that point of time the Chief Justice used to name the arbitrator. By my order dated 2nd July, 2012 I had recorded the death of Mr. Justice Ajit Kumar Sengupta, who had been acting as the Arbitrator and had referred the matter to the Chief Justice for naming the new arbitrator.

(2.) First of all, the applicant has to show that there was sufficient ground, which prevented him from appearing in court when these orders were passed. Mr. Mitra drew this court's attention to a letter dated 16th May, 2012 written by H.L. Datta & Co., Solicitors & Advocates, acting for the petitioner in the Sec. 11 application to the Registrar, Original Side with a copy served upon Mr. Mitra's advocates on record. That letter stated that the matter was released by Mr. Justice Sanjib Banerjee. On the copy of the said letter, Mishra & Co., Advocates, Mr. Mitra's Advocates on record endorsed that they were to be intimated upon assignment of the matter. Mr. Mitra submits that the said firm of advocates, Mishra & Co., were not so intimated by the advocate on record for the said petitioner and that is why his client had no notice of this application.

(3.) I do not accept this submission. Mr. Mitra's advocates on record had knowledge about the release of the matter by Justice Sanjib Banerjee. It is a known practise of this court that when a matter is released, the file is sent to the Honourable The Chief Justice for assignment. After assignment the matter is never taken up straightaway. It is always placed in the list as 'To Be Mentioned' with specially assigned written in acronym [s.a.] against the cause title. So, the applicant had sufficient notice of the matter. He could not sufficiently explain his absence when the order was passed.