CR No.5919 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5919 of 2003 Date of decision:29.03.2011 Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd. ..... Petitioner Versus Shri Jagdeep Singh and another ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr.Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Vipul Jindal, Advocated for respondent no.1. ***** RAJIVE BHALLA, J.(ORAL) The petitioner has filed this revision for setting aside order dated 02.08.2003, passed by the District Judge, Sangrur. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the learned District Judge, Sangrur has accepted the petitioner's plea that the Arbitrator is guilty of misconduct, the finding should have been incorporated in the relief and it should have been clarified that dismissal of the claim, filed by respondent no.1, does not prohibit the corporation from initiating proceedings against respondent no.1. Counsel for respondent no.1 however, submits that the order passed by the District Judge, Sangrur does not call for interference. The fact that claim of respondent no.1 has been rejected by the Arbitrator for failure to file his claim, does not prohibit respondent no.1 from claiming refund of the security. I have heard counsel for the parties and am satisfied that the CR No.5919 of 2003 -2- impugned order does not call for interference. The revision appears to have been filed on an erroneous understanding of the order passed by the District Judge, Sangrur. The District Judge, Sangrur has held as follows: - “After the appointment of the Arbitrator, the respondent refused to file a claim before the Arbitrator though it was the respondent who was approaching the court for a relief against the petitioner. It is, therefore, a case in which statement of claim was to be filed by respondent for which a number of opportunities were granted by the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator wrongly and under some misconception of facts presumed that it is corporation which is to file a statement of claim before it against the respondent. In fact both the parties failed to file statement of claim before the Arbitrator but the Arbitrator passed the order arbitrarily against the corporation without passing a similar order against the respondent. Arbitrator has therefore, misconducted the proceedings while passing the impugned award. The observations as mentioned above so far as the same related to non filing of statement of claim by corporation cannot stand. The Arbitrator has therefore, exceeded its jurisdiction in debarring the corporation from making a claim against the respondent. I am therefore, of the opinion that petitioner has succeeded in proving both these issues in its favour and the same are decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent” The last paragraph of the judgment reads as follows: - “Careful perusal of the above referred Sections make the position crystal clear. In Sec.25(a) it is made clear that in case the claimant failed to communicate his statement of claim in accordance with Sub-Sec.(1) of Sec.23 of the Act, the Arbitrator Tribunal shall terminate the proceedings. Therefore, the Arbitrator Tribunal hereby terminate the Arbitral proceedings u/s 25(a) of the Arbitration Act” It is, therefore, apparent that the petitioner's right, particularly its right to claim adjudication of the matter by way of a reference has neither been adverted to much less adversely affected. In so far as CR No.5919 of 2003 -3- respondent no.1's plea that he has a right to seek, refund of security, suffice it to state that the matter can only be considered as and when such a plea is raised in any proceedings that respondent no.1 may chose to initiate or in any proceedings that may be pending between parties. The impugned order therefore, does not call for interference. Disposed of accordingly. 29.03.2011 [ RAJIVE BHALLA ] shamsher JUDGE