TBI n"'.. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CONTEMPT PETITION_NO. I ^<t /2005 IN THE MATTER OF :- M.A. N0.1090 /2003 BETWEEN E. RAMENDRA RAO VERSUS BAJRANG LOHIA 8c ANR APPELLANT RESPONDENTS APPLICANT \s->"^ .•5-$>^>"^W.^ ^$^ Aa^et E-'"2—,^' lq'?5*s%. '•/' v NON-APPLICANT ^•^\^ ?F1^r< l //' %5f(&.^ v'*v''^y ^ E. Ramendra Rao, son of Late E. Nageshwar Rao, aged about 47 years, resident of Link Road, Bilaspur Vs Nathmal Sharma, son of Not Known, Adult, resident of C/o Evening Times, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.) PETITION UNDER SECTION 12 OF TjIE CONTEMPT OF CQURTS ACT, 1973 READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. •gs 'a m n XI-HC-78 *TT*10^ B>*fiq> ^T.TJ •^iiqirt'q, t»Tfl<(1'll<»,Rrtl'(iy< C^^(?+^e . (SS/o-r- .sn^simrR'ii* ;?[**11<b 3IT^9T Vf= (llclij61<£i) OTSITWR •(iRd OT^CT Mr. B.P.Sharma, Heard on adnuss WMle passin; No.1090/2003 on 18-11-2( absence of couiuUance of Conciliation Act, 1996 (hence corriiaenced in fhe instaat c acqiiire aiiy jurisdiction to pi Act. .Now, it is aJlesed fhat, issued notice on 16-12-2005 case subinitted before him. is Leamed coiinsel absence of coinpliaiice of Sed did not coininence, fhereford jirrisdiction to issue notic disobevirig the directions of 1 tlierefore, his act is punisbali 1971 as weU under Article 21] Section 2fb'l of defuies civil conteinpt, which| context ofhd (iiKlfo'ill iiinT^ffe'<l •<K||'K;I'< ^3|Klt|3II^?I |counsel for the petitioner. ton. order ia MisceUaneous Appeal |05, this Court observed that, in Sectioii 21 of th.e Arbitration aad fortli fhe Act'i, no arbitral proceeding ase, therefore, th.e arbitrator did not iss auv ori.er under Sectioa 17 of the the arbitrator Natlijnal Sliarcia has to bofh. ttie parties uitmiatiag tliat Uie fixed forheariae on 20-12-2005. for tlie petitioner contended fhat, iii don 21 of ttie Act, arbitral proceediiig , fhe arbitrator does not acquire ajiv dated 16-12-2005, who wfflfully his Court has issued tlie said notice, ile under fhe Conteittpt of Courts Act, 5 of tlie Constitution. the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 reads as below : - In this Act, uiiless the i-wise reqiures, - Wl XI-HC-78 *ll*l<?»l^HT?? ^T.T| .-yi41ri^l, U>Ti1<(1<IS,lqrtl'<-iy'< C<=^r)~. S>+~ Ke . ?.%/ -z- 3TI^?I q^P ('jclijel.E;) an^sTwrR'ii* ?i2ii3ii^?T»tiro laias- B^ai<R^feT3II^?T (a) (b) "civil disobediencd direction; oifler court or wilflfl. given to a aifi coUrt; This Court tn its it opiaion regarding coininenct holding ftiat in the in.stant c; fhe order passed zuider Sd' luiisdiction set aside the ordl agreeuient have been directed ttie arbitrator ia accordaace i been passed agaiast the held that, fhe arbitrator i4 direction of this Court. Therefore, the desei-ves to be disiaissed audl tlie petitioner niav avail other <bl'yfd4)-1*11*<d)'^'fo'<l '((uitgix ^aif^lqgn^ST xxxxx; conteinpt" nieaiis wiUful to aiiy judgiaent, decree, er, writ or otlier process of a "ul breach of ern. undertakiag |irder dated 18-11-2005 expressed its ;Dient of at-bitral proceeditis; and ;a|se the proceeding did not comitience jction 17 of tlie Act was without •r. Both the pai-ties to fhe arbitral ;cte<jl to raise disputes/objectious before tvith law. No order or du-ection has arbi|Tator. In iny opitiion, it cazuiof be aiiv wav has wiUfuUy disobeved co4teiapt petition filed by fhe petitioner is accordinglv disniissed. Hovcever, k'em.edv if available under law. Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge