CRP 20/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY The petitioner, who is one of the opposite party in the proceeding registered and numbered as Misc. (Arbitration) Case No.571/2009 pendi ng in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Kamrup at Guwahati ins tituted at the instance of the present respondent No.1 on the basis of the appli cation filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in s hort, the 1996 Act ), has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitu tion of India challenging the order dated 15-12-2009 passed by the learned Addit ional District Judge, Kamrup at Guwahati. In the said proceeding, the prayer of the petitioner to file written objection objecting the maintainability of the o bjection filed by the present respondent No.2 before the said Court was rejected . I have heard Mr. K.R. Surana, the learned counsel for th e petitioner and Ms. M. Bordoloi, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 as well s Mr. S. Khound, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. It appears from the materials available on record that a n application under Section 9 of the 1996 Act was filed by the present responden t No.1, which has been registered and numbered as Misc. (Arbitration) Case No.57 1/2009 and presently pending in the Court of the learned Additional District Jud ge, Kamrup at Guwahati seeking an order of injunction. In the said proceeding, an order of injunction was passed by the learned Court below. The present respon dent No.2 thereafter, entered appearance and filed an objection opposing the pra yer for grant of the order of injunction as well as the maintainability of the s aid proceeding. At that stage, a prayer was made seeking time to file written o bjection relating to the maintainability of the objection filed by the responden t No.2 herein. The said prayer has been rejected by the learned Court below and hence the present petition. It appears that the present respondent No.2 filed the ob jection raising the maintainability of the arbitration proceeding before the lea rned Court below as well as against the prayer for injunction contending that he is one of the Directors of Assam Chemical & Pharmaceutical Private Limited, the opposite party No.1 in the said arbitration proceeding. The same, however, has been disputed by Mr. Surana, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who claims to be the General Manager of the said Company. According to Mr. Sura na, the present respondent No.2 is not the Director of the Assam Chemical & Phar maceutical Private Limited. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No .2 disputes the authority of the General Manager in representing the Assam Chemi cal & Pharmaceutical Private Limited. Since the arbitration proceeding being Misc. (Arbitratio n) Case No.571/2009 is pending, the same is required to be disposed of as early as possible and in accordance with law. The learned Court below while deciding the said proceeding shall also consider the aforesaid objections raised by the p arties. The present revision petition is, therefore, disposed of with a direction to the learned Additional District Judge, Kamrup at Guwahati t o decide the arbitration proceeding pending before it finally within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of appearance of the parties. The parties are dir ected to appear before the learned Additional District Judge, Kamrup at Guwahati on 26th April, 2010 for taking necessary order from that Court. No cost.