1. OJCA No.3 of 2012 is for condonation of delay in filing Misc. Civil Application. OJCA No.4 of 2012 is seeking stay of the order passed by this Court on 9.9.2011 in Arbitration Petition No.43 of 2011.
2. The applicant is original petitioner of Arbitration Petition No.43 of 2011. He had prayed for appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent. The petition was allowed on 9.9.2011. The contention of the respondent that since the agreement provides that the arbitration proceedings shall be held at New Delhi, the present proceedings filed before the Gujarat High Court is not maintainable, was not accepted making following observations Para.3 and 4.
"3. Notice to the respondent issued. The respondent appeared through the advocate and filed affidavit-in-reply. Main objection of the respondent is that Arbitration Clause envisages that the proceedings shall be held at New Delhi and therefore, present petition filed in this Court is not maintainable.
However, it is not in dispute that the respondent is stationed at Vadodara, the agreement required certain channel work to be done at Vadodara and it is out of such an agreement that dispute arose between the parties.
4. In that view of the matter, simply because the agreement envisages sitting of Arbitrator at New Delhi, it cannot be said that the present application is not maintainable before this Court."
3. After having disposed of the objections of the respondent, I had proceeded to request Retired Judge Shri D.A. Mehta to act as a sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties arising out of the agreement dated 1.4.2008.
4. Misc.
Civil Application is filed seeking review of the said order in which it is stated, inter alia, that since the arbitration proceedings are to be held at Delhi, the Hon'ble Mr.Justice B.C. Patel (Retd.) of the Delhi High Court, who is stationed at Delhi, should be appointed as an arbitrator. It is stated that the applicant consumed some time in obtaining consent of the said learned Judge.
5. The grounds stated in the application are insufficient to review the order dated 9.9.2011. Said order was passed in the open Court after hearing the counsel for the petitioner and in fact, even the choice of the arbitrator was made with the tacit consent of the petitioner's counsel. At this stage, it would be highly improper on my part to recall such order and request some other learned Judge to perform the said task.
6. When I do not find any merits in application for condonation of delay, the question of condoning delay and granting stay does not arise. All proceedings are, therefore, dismissed.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (vipul) Top