^ ^ v: ^ §1 i ^ HIGH COURT OF_JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRi S.R. NAYAK, C.J. WRIT PETITION N0.1761 OF 2006. PETITIONERS 1. 2. RESPONDENTS Vs. 1. PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS Steel Authority of India Limited through its Chairman, SAIL, Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. Steel Authority of India Limited through its Managing Director, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhiiai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) M/s. Amar Engineering Works, through - Partner Kedarnath Singhal, aged about 65 years, son of Shri IVIofiial Singhal, R/o. 165, New Civic Centre, Bhilai, DistrictDurg(CG). Shri B.S. Gupta, .. Arbitrator "Saubhagya", 1- S.M. Padmanbhpur, District Durg, (C.G.) 491 001 . WRIT PETITION N0.1762 OF 2006. 1. Steel Authority of India Limited through its Chairman, SAIL, Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 2. Steel Authority of India Limited through its Managing Director, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) M/s. Amar Engineering Works, through - Partner Kedarnath Singhal, aged about 65 years, son of Shri Motilal Singhal, fVo. 165, New Civic Centre, Bhilai, District Durg (CG). 2. ShriB.S.Gupta, Arbitrator "Saubhagya", 1- S.M. Padmanbhpur, DistrictDurg,(C.G.)491 001. WRIT PETITION N0.1763 OF 2006. Vs. 1. PETtTIONERS 1. Steel Authority of India Limited through its Chairman, SAIL, Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. RESPQNDENTS Vs. 1. 2. Steel Authority of India Limited through its Managing Director, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) M/s. Amar Engineering Works, through - Partner Kedamath Singhal, aged about 65 years, son of Shri Motilal Singhal, R/o. 165, New Civic Centre, Bhilai, DistrictDurg(CG). 2. Shri B.S. Gupta, Arbitrator "Saubhagya", 1- S.M. Padmanbhpur, DistrictDurg, (C.G.) 491 001. Present: Dr. N.K. Shukla, senior counsel with Shri A.K. Yadav, learned counsel Tor the petitioners. Shri Mukesh Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.1 ORAL ORDER (Passed on 25'" July, 2006) In | all these writ petitions, the order made by the tearned District Judge,Durg appointing the Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of Arbitration Act has been assailed. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in M/s. S.B.P. &Co. vs. M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd. & Anr.1, the tearned District Judge ought to have transferred the application to the Chief Justice of this Court. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders are setaside. i (2) The learned District Judge is directed to refer the applications to the Chief Justice of this Court. ~--— Sd/- J ChiefJustice 1. 2006®MPJR 1 = (2005) 8 SCC 638 •i i^i