ANTONY DOMINIC v. Tahsildar (2011 (2) KLT 1007) andthe issue has already been decided against
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Therefore these applications are allowedand the District Collector, Ernakulam, theDesignated Arbitrator, shall initiate proceedings inaccordance with the provisions of the Act andconclude the same, as expeditiously as possible
Provisions considered
Judgment
ANTONY DOMINIC, J........................................A.R.Nos.3/2012 and 40/2011..............................................Dated this the 26th day of July, 2012ORDERThese Applications have been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996, (in short 'the Act') for the appointment of an Arbitrator for resolving the disputes and differences between the applicants and the respondents. 2. Annexure-A1 in these cases are the pattasissued to the applicants. Clause 14 thereof provide that if any dispute or difference arises between the Government or their officers on the one part and thegrantee or his/her successors in interest on the other part, as to the rights, duties or liabilities of either party in respect of any matter or thing relating to or arising out of the grant or the construction or the meaning of all or any of the conditions of the grant, the said dispute or difference shall be referred for settlement by an Arbitration to the District Collector.
A.R.3/12 & 40/1123.It appears that on the allegations that the applicants have violated the terms of assignment, the proceedings were initiated by the first respondent and the applicants filed replies disputing the allegations against them and seeking appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of clause 14mentioned above. However, appointment was not made within the time specified in the Act. It is thereupon that these Applications were filed. 4.A counter has been filed by the respondents inA.R.40/2011 where, on merits they dispute the entitlement of the applicants to get the Arbitratorappointed. 5. It is seen that the contentions in theseApplications and in the counter have already been considered by this Court in the judgment in JoemonJoseph v. Tahsildar (2011 (2) KLT 1007) and the issue has already been decided against the respondents. Accordingly, an Arbitrator was appointed in that case. The fact that the issue is A.R.3/12 & 40/113covered by that judgment is admitted in paragraph 6of the counter affidavit.
Operative part
However, it is stated that the respondents have initiated steps to challenge the aforesaid judgment in an Appeal before the ApexCourt. 6. As at present, the issue is concluded by the judgment referred to above and the right of the applicants to get the Arbitrator appointed, cannot be denied. Therefore these applications are allowed and the District Collector, Ernakulam, the Designated Arbitrator, shall initiate proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Act and conclude the same, as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mrcs /true copy/ PA To Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Therefore these applications are allowedand the District Collector, Ernakulam, theDesignated Arbitrator, shall initiate proceedings inaccordance with the provisions of the Act andconclude the same, as expeditiously as possible
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 11(6).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.