In present petition, the petitioners have brought under challenge the order dated 22.11.2010 passed in A.R.No.178/1996. The impugned order dated 22.11.2010 reads thus:-
"The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that this case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of V.A. Tech. Escher Wyas Floval Ltd. M.P.S.E. Board & Anr., reported in 2010 Arb. W.L.J. 116 (SC), and agreed that this case be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble supreme Court as the present Reference is not maintainable before this Tribunal.
In view of the above, this Reference is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment."
2. On perusal of the impugned order, it becomes crystal clear that the order impugned is in nature of ad-invitum order. Any contention as regards merits of the matter and/or even about the applicability of the judgment referred to in the order are not raised before the learned tribunal. In fact, the tribunal has observed in the order that, " the learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that this case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of V.A. Tech. Escher Wyas Floval Ltd. M.P.S.E. Board & Anr., reported in 2010 Arb. W.L.J. 116 (SC), and agreed that this case be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment ....."
3. In view of the fact that the parties to the proceedings before the learned tribunal invited and accepted the order without making any submissions on merits, the petition does not deserve to be entertained against the order passed at the request of the parties.
4. Furthermore, the order impugned in present petition was passed on 22.11.2010. The petition is preferred after delay of more than one and half years. Therefore also, this Court is not inclined to entertain present petition.
With the aforesaid observation, present petition stands disposed of as not entertained.
(K.M.Thaker, J.) kdc Top