PunjabHaryana High Court M/S Abw Suncity vs Tarun Malik And Others on 12 May, 2021 HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** RACR252021 in ARB522021 (O&M) and ARB522021 (O&M) Reserved on 05.04.2021 Date of Decision: 12.05.2021 **** M/s ABW Suncity ... Petitioner VS. Tarun Malik & Ors. ... Respondents **** **** Present: Mr. Kuldip Kumar Kohli, Advocate for the reviewapplicant(s)s/respondents Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Advocate for nonapplicant/petitioner Mr. Sumesh Malhotra, Advocate for the respondents (ARB40 & 662021) **** GIRISH AGNIHOTRI, J. (Oral) (1) The matter has been taken up through video conferencing on account of restrictions due to outbreak of COVID19 pandemic. (2) This order shall dispose of the following Arbitration cases and review applications collectively by way of a common order: RACR182021 IN ARB482021 ARB482021 RACR192021 IN ARB162021 ARB162021 RACR202021 IN ARB452021 ARB452021 RACR212021 IN ARB252021 ARB252021 RACR222021 IN ARB262021 ARB262021 RACR232021 IN ARB272021 ARB272021 RACR242021 IN ARB282021 ARB282021 RACR252021 IN ARB522021 ARB522021 RACR272021 IN ARB392021 ARB392021 (3) For the sake of facts, order is being passed in RACR252021 in/and ARB522021 and for the sake of facts, reference is also being made to ARB522021 and ARB252021. 1 of 12 ::: Downloaded on 06062021 01:44:48 ::: RACR252021 in ARB522021 2 (4) Learned counsel for the reviewapplicant/appellantrespondent submits that the written arguments submitted by the respondents in ARB52 2021 be treated the common stand of the respondents in all cases. (5) Learned counsel for the nonapplicant/petitioner submits that the reply to the RACR212021 in ARB252021 be treated the common stand on behalf of the petitioner(s) in all cases. (6) ARB522021 has been filed by M/s ABW Suncity in the nature of petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 inter alia with a prayer for appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to settle the dispute inter se petitioner and the respondents. (7) Records of the case show that when this case along with other connected matters came up for hearing before this Court on 21.01.2021, this Court had disposed of the present case vide order dated 21.01.2021. In that order, reliance was also placed upon an earlier order passed by this Court dated 09.09.2020 in ARB1342020 titled as M/s ABW Suncity vs. Kishen M. Seshadari & Ors. (8) Thereafter RACR252021 was filed in ARB522021 under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Sections 114 and 151 CPC inter alia with a prayer to review the order dated 21.01.2021 passed by this Court. In the review application filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been contended that the respondent(s) for whom learned advocate(s) appeared on 21.01.2021 had not given any instructions to the advocate(s) to the effect that they have no objection in case the Arbitrator from the panel of arbitrators is appointed. (9) At this stage, learned counsel for the respondentsreview applicants submits that it is correct that this Court on 21.01.2021 had directed that counsel who are giving consent and have instructions from their respective 2 of 12 ::: Downloaded on 06062021 01:44:48 ::: RACR252021 in ARB522021 3 clients that they have no objection in case an Arbitrator is appointed by this Court, should convey their respective attendance to the admin of the video conferencing group. It is also not disputed that counsel for the review applicant(s)(s)/respondent(s) had given their presence. However, learned counsel has specifically contended that they had not correctly understood the observations of the Court at the time of hearing and, therefore, in the review applications inasmuch as the review applicant(s)/respondent(s) be allowed to address the oral arguments in support of their review applications and against the appointment of the Sole Arbitrator. (10) In view of the