AGARWAL RASAYAN Vs. NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition involves quashing of order dated 7.5.2018 passed by the District Judge, Angul in ARBP No.24 of 2015 under Annexure-1 series as well as the consequential order dated 4.9.2018 in the same appeal under Annexure-1 series and further seeking a direction to the District Judge, Angul to complete the hearing of the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (short, the Act, 1996 ).

(2.) Short background involving the case is that the petitioner is a partnership firm represented through its Managing partner. Opposite party, a public sector undertaking initiated an arbitration proceeding involving the petitioner by appointing arbitrator from its own panel of arbitrators. The arbitration proceeding was concluded vide judgment dated 17.3.2015 thereby passing an award in favour of the opp. party, the public sector undertaking while also allowing the counter claim filed by the petitioner. The award of the arbitrator dated 17.3.2015 was challenged by NALCO before the District Judge, Angul involving an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 registered as ARBP No.24 of 2015. It is alleged that while Section 34 proceeding was taken up for hearing, an attempt was made by the District Judge, Angul to treat the proceeding under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 like that of a suit and by order dated 7.5.2018, the District Judge directed the parties to produce evidence. Finding the direction remaining contrary to the purport of Act and also the settled position of law and referred to therein in the order dated 7.5.2018 itself, on 25.7.2018 a petition was filed by the opp. party to recall the order dated 7.5.2018. On receipt of copy, the present petitioner also filed a memo indicating therein it s no objection to allow such application in recalling the order dated 7.5.2018. By order dated 4.9.2018 petition filed by the opp. party to recall the order dated 7.5.2018 was rejected resulting filing of this writ application.

(3.) Shri Gautam Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while making a statement that the impugned order is being aggrieved by both the sides, took this Court to a judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Fiza Developers and Inter-Trade Pvt. Vrs. Amci (I) (P), 2009 17 SCC 796, Shri Mishra taking this Court to the discussions and the findings therein submitted that the impugned orders vide Annexure-1 series are all bad and unless interfered and sets aside, the orders will create a bad precedent.