INDERJIT MEHTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order of the District Judge, Hissar, dated 8.3.1990, whereby the order of the trial court granting ad -interim injunction staying the proceedings before the Arbitrator was set aside and the parties were directed to approach the Arbitrator according to the agreement.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the defendant Union of India had taken time for filling the written statement, it was debarred from filling an application under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration Act. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Rachappa Gunduappa V. Gurusidappa Nuranjappa, : AIR 1989 S.C. 635. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that this is factually wrong as on time was taken for filing the written statement. Time, if any, was taken for filing reply to the application for ad interim injunction and, therefore, the same did not debar the Union of India from moving an application under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration Act.

(3.) After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this petition. Since no time was taken by the Union of India for filing the written statement, the judgment, referred to above, has not applicability to the facts of the present case. Consequently, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs.