LAWS(P&H)-2004-8-112

MAHALAKSHMI RICE & GENERAL MILLS Vs. PUNJAB STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED

Decided On August 10, 2004
Mahalakshmi Rice And General Mills Appellant
V/S
Punjab State Cooperative Supply And Marketing Federation Limited Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Section 24 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prays for transfer of proceedings initiated by respondents under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity 'the Act') which are pending in the Court of District Judge, Ludhiana to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Chandigarh. The case pending at Ludhiana is titled as 'Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. (Markfed) v. M/s Mahalakshmi Rice and General Mills Nakodar and others'. The principal ground for transfer is that against the same award dated 1.9.2003 the petitioner has filed a petition under Section 34 of the Act and the same is pending before the District Judge, Chandigarh and in order to avoid any conflicting view, it would be appropriate to decide both the cases by the one forum.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that some dispute between the parties arose which lead to the appointment of Arbitrator who announced his award on 1.9.2003. The Markfed-respondent has filed a petition under Section 34 of the Act at Ludhiana and the petitioner has filed a similar petition at Chandigarh. In both the cases, the prayer made is for modification and setting aside of part of the award as suitable to the respective parties. The petitioner has filed the petition under Section 34 of the Act on 11.12.2003 in which notice was issued for 12.3.2004 by the District Judge, Chandigarh whereas the Markfed respondent filed the petition a week earlier i.e. on 4.12.2003 in which notice was issued for 9.2.2004.

(3.) SHRI D.V. Sharma, learned counsel for the Markfed-respondent has argued that the petition under Section 34 of the Act filed by the Markfed-respondent is prior in point of time. Therefore, the petition filed later by the petitioner should be transferred. The learned counsel has maintained that petition under Section 34 of the Act filed by the petitioner at Chandigarh was a week later than that of the petition filed by the Markfed-respondent. The later petition be transferred to Ludhiana and the prayer made should not be accepted.