The undisputed facts of the case are The respondent filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 hereinafter referred to as the 1996 Act for referring the dispute to arbitrator on the strength of companytract entered with appellant.
No cause has been shown as to why they have number filed their Statement of Claim in spite of repeated opportunities being given to them.
State of Bihar and Ors.,
The High Court set aside the order of the arbitral tribunal and remitted the matter back to the arbitral tribunal to decide the application dated 20.01.2012 filed by the respondent on merits.
The application of the respondent claimant was thus rejected.
The arbitral tribunal heard both the parties and by an order dated 26.04.2012 accepted the preliminary objections of the appellant holding that in view of order terminating the proceedings, he cannot pass an order recommencing the arbitration proceedings.
The High Court after companysidering the submissions of parties came to the companyclusion that arbitral tribunal enjoys the power to recall its own order relying on the Patna High Court judgment reported in M s Snebo Engineering Ltd. Vs.
The appellant aggrieved by the judgment of Calcutta High Court has companye up in this appeal.
The appellant before the High Court objected the maintainability of the application under Article 227 of the Constitution.
This companyrt on 07.07.2015 issued numberice and in the meantime stayed the operation of the order passed by the Calcutta High Court.
Both the parties appeared on 27.08.2011 on which date arbitral tribunal had directed the respondent to file the statement of claim.
On 9th December, the claim companyld number be filed by respondent and by order dated 12.12.2011, tribunal terminated the proceedings under Section 25 a by making the following observations It appears that the claimant is number interested to proceed with the reference.
The application under Section 11 of the 1996 Act was thus dismissed as number pressed.
During pendency of the application under Section 11 with companysent of the parties, Sri Baskar Sen, Senior Advocate, Bar at Law was appointed as Arbitrator.
While hearing the matter on 29.08.2017, this companyrt numbericed that question of law raised in this case is important one and since numberone has appeared on behalf of respondent, this companyrt requested Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, Senior Advocate, to assist the companyrt in deciding the issue.
The arbitral tribunal directed for filing statement of claim by 9th December.
It was further companytended before the High Court that after terminating the proceedings arbitral tribunal had become functus officio and had numberpower to recall the order dated 12.12.2011.
Subsequently, 19th November was fixed on which date the claimant was absent.
One man arbitral tribunal entered into reference and called for the first sitting of the arbitral tribunal on 27.08.2011.
The appellant questioned the maintainability of the application dated 20.01.2012 on the ground that arbitral tribunal has become functus officio in view of termination of the proceedings under Section 25 a , hence the arbitral tribunal cannot recall its order terminating the proceedings.
The application filed by the claimant was objected by the appellant.
In the application, reasons for number filing of the statement of the claim and for number appearance of the claimant on 19.11.2011 and 12.12.2011 were stated in detail.
Although, the respondent was served but numbere appeared on behalf of the respondent.
The High Court after entertaining the application under Article 227 held that arbitral tribunal has power to recall its own order.
Aggrieved by the order of the arbitral tribunal dated 26.04.2012, the claimant approached the Calcutta High Court in its revisionary jurisdiction by filing C.O.No.3190 of 2012.
The High Court also overruled the objections of appellant that application under Article 227 by the claimant challenging the order dated 12.12.2011 was number maintainable.
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. Leave granted.
This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 13.02.2015 of the Calcutta High Court by which the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has set aside the Order passed by the arbitral tribunal by which the arbitral tribunal had refused to recall its Order dated 12.12.2011 terminating the Signature Not Verified arbitration proceedings on account of number filing Digitally signed by NIDHI AHUJA Date 2018.05.05 115755 IST Reason of the claim by the claimant.
AIR 2004 Patna 33.
