Full Judgment Text
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 189 OF 2010
(Arising out of SLP [C] No.13567 of 2009)
C.M.C. Ltd. … Appellant
Vs.
Madhya Pradesh Stock Exchange & Anr. … Respondent
O R D E R
Leave granted. Heard the counsel.
2. An Arbitral award dated 20.10.2003 was made in favour
of the appellant in a claim against the first respondent.
The first respondent filed an application under Section 34
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’ for
short) for setting aside the said award. The said
application was dismissed for non-prosecution on 27.6.2006.
The first respondent filed an application under Order IX,
Rules 4 and 9 read with section 151 of Code of Civil
Procedure (‘Code’ for short) for setting aside the
dismissal. The appellant raised a preliminary objection that
the petition was not maintainable. Learned Additional
District Judge, Indore, before whom the said application was
made by order dated 5.8.2008, held that the application for
2
setting aside the dismissal, was maintainable. The appellant
challenged the said order by filing a writ petition before
the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The High Court, by the
impugned order dated 12.12.2008 dismissed the writ petition
filed by the appellant holding that the appropriate remedy
was by way of revision under Section 115 of CPC. The said
order is challenged in this appeal by special leave.
3. After the matter was heard for some time, the learned
counsel for the appellant submitted that the matter has been
pending for nearly six years after the award, and to avoid
any further delay and to ensure that the proceedings under
Section 34 were completed expeditiously, the appellant will
have no objection for the dismissal for non-prosecution,
being set aside and the application under Section 34 being
restored to file, provided the first respondent agreed to
co-operate with the Court for summary disposal of the
proceedings.
4. This Court in Fiza Developers & Inter-Trade (P) Ltd.
V. AMCI (I) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. 2009 (11) SCALE 371, has held
that having regard to the object of the Act, which was to
provide expeditious alternative binding dispute resolution
process with the minimal court intervention, proceedings
under Section 34 of the Act, are intended to be summary
proceedings and not full fledged trials in the manner of
civil suits under the Code. In view of it, learned counsel
3
for the first respondent did not dispute the position that
the proceedings under Section 34 will have to be disposed of
expeditiously and assured that the first respondent will
cooperate with the civil court for early disposal of the
proceedings under Section 34 of the Act, as summary
proceedings.
5. In view of the above, there is no need to examine the
question of law raised in this appeal (relating to
maintainability of writ petition) on merits. By consent and
in exercise of our power to do complete justice, we set
aside the order dated 27.6.2006 dismissing the first
respondent’s application under Section 34 of the Act, allow
the same and restore A.C No. 1/2005 to file with a request
to the learned Addl. District Judge, Indore to dispose of
the said application under Section 34 of the Act
expeditiously, preferably within four months. As a
consequence the proceedings in MJC 14/2006 on the file of
th
the 15 Addl. District Judge, Indore shall stand disposed
of. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
…………………………………………….J.
(R V Raveendran)
New Delhi; ……………………………………………….J.
January 8, 2010. (K S Radhakrishnan)