Court No. - 7
Case :- ARBITRATION AND CONCILI. APPL.U/S11(4) No. - 61 of 2018 Applicant :- M/S Rose Gram Gramoudhyog Sansthan And Another Opposite Party :- The Uttar Pradesh Khadi And Village Industries Board And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Sharma
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.
This is an application under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act 1996") which has been filed on the ground that there exists an agreement between the parties dated 1.7.1994, which contains an arbitration clause. The only grievance of the applicant is that when he took the loan there was Government Subsidy of 25 % which has not been given. The applicant contended that if the subsidy would have been given to the applicant then there would not have been any material amount due against him pursuant to the loan taken. Deed of hypothecation dated 1.7.1994, filed by the applicant shows that it does not contain any agreement for grant of subsidy. This is pure and simple hypothecation deed under which the property was hypothecated as security by way of first charge over the properties so as to secure the loan. The applicant has earlier filed a Writ C No.44477 of 2011, challenging the recovery which was disposed of by order dated 8.8.2011 with the direction to the respondent concerned to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law on the representation of the petitioner dated 24.2.2011. It appears that the representation of the applicant was rejected. However, he filed another Writ C No.7444 of 2017, before a Division Bench of this Court which was dismissed by order dated 20.2.2017, observing that it is difficult to believe that petitioners were not aware about the rejection of the representation. It was further observed that the writ petition has been filed with inordinate delay and, therefore, it deserves to be dismissed. With these observations, the writ petition was dismissed.
Since the hypothecation deed dated 1.7.1994, containing the arbitration clause is not in relation to the subsidy, therefore, no dispute arose between the parties referable to the deed in question i.e. the deed of hypothecation dated 1.7.1994 .
In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any good reason to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996. The application is, therefore, dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.5.2018/vkg