SB : HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE DHIRENDRA MISHRA Arbitration Applicatiori No. 27/2007 M/ s Paul Brothars, a Registered partnership firm, 57 Near lndora Police Station, Kamtee Road, P.O. Nagpur. Applieaiit Versus M/ s South Eastern Coalflelds Ltd. (Previously known as Western Coalflelds Ltd) a subsidiary Coal India Ltd through Its C.M.D. having its registered, b£fiee at Rilaspnr P.0‘ Rilaspnr MP. L\ .... Non-applicant Presentp Shri S.T. Madnani with Shri M.K, Sinheg counsel for the applicant. . Dr. N.K. Shukla, Sr. Advocate with Ku. Ritu Mishra, counsel for the non-applicant. ORAL ORDER (4th Aprii 2008) Heard. The applicant iiled a petition before the learned District Judge, Bilaspur under Section 5, 11, 12 of the Arbitration Act. 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 1996:) from the petition as also the entire paragraphs No. 5, 12 andg for deletin 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 20.652007 without g ‘ ‘ ‘ \ deciding the above application, relyihg upon the judgment in the matter of Mls SBP & Co. Vs. M[s 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 PateZ Engineering the High Court has jurisdiction to hear such applications only, therefore, the matter be sent to the High Cou ". 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 District ‘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 healing. 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 Act of 1996 would not be applicable. Reliance is placed on the decision in the matter of Neeraj Munjal and others Vs. Atul Grover Minor and another reported in AIR 2005 SC 2867. Tn these circumstances, the matter may be sent back to the concerned District Judge to \s J décide the application dated 2.2.2007 for amgndment in tha petition; after hearing counsel for the parties. Dr. N.K. Shrukla, learned Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the non—applicant does not dispdte the legal proposition that the arbitral proceedings commencedl 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 omce is directed to send back the file of the instant case t6 the learned Distn’ct Judge, Korba, who, in turn, shall pass appropriate order on the application of the applicant dated 2.2.2007 for amendment inthe petition, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties to the dispute, in accordance with law. \ \ \ \ The reference is accordingly disposedof/ e“& 3“d%° , ,// 561’ a¢y§“‘a w“ n‘r