SB : HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE DHIREWDRAMISHRA 1 Arbitration Application} No. 28/2007 M/ s Paul Brothers, a Registered partnership 111111, 57 Near Indora Po1ice Station, Kamtee Road, P.O. Nagpur. Appiieaiit Versus M/ s South Eastern Coalflelds Ltd. (Freviously known as Western Coalflelds Ltd) a subsidiary Coal India Ltd. through L. Its C.M.D. having its registered/Offme at Rilaspm‘ PO. Ri1aspur MP. I, Non-applicant Present:— Shri S.T. ‘Madnani with Shri MK, Sinha, counsel for the applicant. Dr. N.K. Shukla, Sr. Advocate with Ku. Ritu Mishra, counsel for the non—applicant. i l l ORAL ORDER l (4m April 2008) l Heard. l jig J i ’\ The applicant filed a petition before the learned District l. ‘r Judge, Bilaspur under Section 5, 11, 12 of the Arbitration Act. 1 1940 read with Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with a prayer that arbitrator may be appointed to resolve the dispute arising out of arbitration agreement between the parties and the dispute may be referred to the arbitrator so appointed for adjudication. During pendency of the above petition, one application was filed by the applicant for amendment on 2.2.2007 in the petition and prayed for deleting the reference to Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity ‘the Act of from the Act, (for 1996:) petition as also the entire paragraphs No. 5, 12 and. f6?" deleting the words “Under the new Act” from paragraph No. 10. The parties were heard on this application at length and the learned District Judge by the order dated 20.6.2007 without deciding the above application, relyirig upon the judgment in the matter of Mls SBP & Co. Vs. Mls Patel Engineering Ltd. reported in AIR 2006 SC 450, referred this matter to this Court for further hearing With an observation that “the application for amendment cannot be decided by this Court as the application for appointment of arbitrator has been filed on 19.8.2004 i.e. after coming into force of the new Act and in View of the judgment in the matter of Patel Engineering the High Court has jurisdiction to hear such applications only, therefore, the matter be sent to the High Court”. i i t i 2 i Learned counsel for the applicant submits that from perusal of the application filed before the learned District Judge, Korba it would be evident that the dispute related to an agreement. entered into between the parties in the year 198 1-82. On the application of the applicant under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, an arbitrator was appointed by the competent authority as per directions of the Districtx Judge, Bilaspur and the parties participated in the arbitration proceedings. Thereafter, the application before the District Judge, Korba was filed in the year 2004 for appointment of another arbitrator as the arbitrator, who was appointed earlier, did not pass award. The application for amendment was filed by the applicant to correct the inadvertent errors present in the petition regarding provisions under which the petition was filed. However, instead of deciding the application for amendment the matter has been referred to this Court for further hearing. It was argued that it is settled law that where the reference to arbitrator was duly made prior to coming into force of the Act of 1996, such matters would be governed by the arbitral proceedings under the Arbitration Act, 1940 and provisions of the ‘A‘ct of 1996 would not be applicable. Reliance is placed on the decision in the matter of Neerai Munial and others Vs. Atul Grover Minor and another reported in AIR 2005 SC 2867. in these circumstances, ' the matter may be sent back to the concerned District Judge to decide the application dated 2.2.2GO7 for anmndment in the petition, after hearing counsel for the tarties. Dr. N.K. ShrukLa, learned Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the non—applicant does not dispute the legal proposition that the arbitral proceedings commenced between the parties prior to coming into force of the Act of 1996, would be governed by the Arbitration Act, 1940. In this View of the matter, the ofnce is directed to send back the file of the instant case to ’the learned District Judge, Korba, who, in turn, shall pass appropriate order on the application of the applicant dated 2.2.2007 for amendment in tlie'petition, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties to the dispute, in accordance with law. The reference is accordingly disposed of. //