Himachal Pradesh High CourtIndusind Bank Ltd vs Naveen Verma on 28 March, 2017Author:Dharam Chand ChaudharyBench:Dharam Chand ChaudharyIN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
                                                        CMPMO No. 244 of 2016




                                                                                       .
                                                        Decided on: 28th March, 2017





           IndusInd Bank Ltd.                                                   .......Petitioner





                                                       Versus

           Naveen Verma                                                         ...Respondent




                                                             of
           Coram
           The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge.
           Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
                                   rt
           For the petitioner:                        Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate.
           For the respondent:                        Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate.

                   Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge (Oral)Heard.2.                Order, Annexure P-1 passed by learned Civil

                   Judge        (Senior      Division),     Solan      on     21.04.2016       in    an




                   application under Section 8 read withSection 5of the





                   Arbitration and Conciliation Act registered as Case No.





                   104/6 of 2016, is under challenge in this petition.3.                It is seen that the Court below on appreciation

                   of the facts of the case such as the Arbitrator in terms of

                   the contract agreement was already appointed in this

                   matter and the arbitral proceedings stands concluded as

                   well as the execution proceedings qua execution of the1Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:04:47 :::HCHP2award are pending disposal in the Court of learned District

    Judge, Rohini (Delhi), the Court below has rightly dismissed




                                                           .the application because the Arbitrator could have not

    been appointed again. The petitioner-defendant rather





    should have contested the suit and filed appropriate




                                    of
    application in the trial Court including for rejection of the

    plaint, in view of the disputes between the parties stand

    resolved by the Arbitrator.        Being so, this petition is
               rt
    dismissed with liberty reserved to the petitioner-defendant

    to seek any other and further remedy available to him in

    accordance with law.4.          Learned counsel submits that the trial Court has

    ordered to struck off the defence of the petitioner-defendant in the main suit.       In case any such order is





    passed during the pendency of this petition, the petitioner-defendant    shall   file   appropriate   application         seeking

    permission to contest the suit and in the event of any such

    application is filed, it is expected from learned trial Judge

    to dispose of the same in accordance with law after

    affording the parties an opportunity of being heard. The::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:04:47 :::HCHP3parties to appear in the trial Court on the date already

    fixed, which according to learned counsel is 01.04.2017..An authenticated copy of this judgment be

    sent to learned trial Court for compliance.March 28, 2017                  (Dharam Chand Chaudhary)
                                            Judge




                                 of
       (naveen)




                rt::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 22:04:47 :::HCHP