TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 1014
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 05.07.2013. The reasons which propelled the petitioner to seek modification, are, set out in order dated 26.08.2013. 2. The respondent entered appearance on 13.09.2013 when, time was granted to file a reply to the main petition as well as to the interlocutory application. 2.1 Ms. Sinha, who appears for the respondent, says that replies have been filed to both the main petition as well as the captioned application. To be noted, the replies are, however, not on record. They appear to be in objection. However, copies of the same have been shown to me by Ms. Sinha. 3. The moot point, which arises for consideration is: whether the petitioner made a demand for appointment of an arb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....no reply was sent to the first notice dated 04.02.2013. In so far as the second notice is concerned i.e., notice dated 07.05.2013, the respondent appears to have sent a communication dated 07.06.2013, whereby it appointed an arbitrator in terms of clause 5.7 of the agreement obtaining between the parties. 3.5 In the interregnum, the petitioner filed the captioned petition with the Registry of this court, on 28.05.2013. The petition came up for hearing before this court, as indicated above, on 05.07.2013 when, notice was issued in the petition. 3.6 As adverted to above, an application for modification of order dated 05.07.2013 was moved in which notice wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... contention that, it was incumbent upon the respondent, to appoint an arbitrator in terms of clause 5.7 of the agreement obtaining between the parties. It is, therefore, his contention that notice dated 07.05.2013 only reiterated the demand since there was no response, admittedly, to the request made in that behalf vide notice dated 04.02.2013. 4.2 Mr. Singh, therefore, says that the fact that the petition was moved on 28.05.2013, is of no relevance from the point of view of the respondent. In other words, the petition is not pre-mature, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent. REASONS 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5.1 The principal question therefore, which arises for consid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 1996 or any statutory modifications or re-enactment there of or any rules made thereof..." (emphasis is mine) 5.3 A careful perusal of the clause would show that once disputes or differences have arisen between the parties then, the matter is required to be referred for arbitration by the Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent or any other person appointed by him. The petitioner, undoubtedly, in the notice dated 04.02.2013, raised disputes to which no response was admittedly issued by the respondent. The petitioner, crucially, in last but one paragraph of the said letter has stated as follows :- "..That the aforesaid violation has resulted into a serious dispute betw....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch is evident upon a bare perusal of the subject reference made in the notice dated 07.05.2013. For the sake of convenience the same is extracted hereinafter: "Sub: Reference for Arbitration of Claim asked from you vide my Legal Notice dated 05.02.2013 (sic.04.02.2013)." 5.7 A reading of the aforesaid extract would show that Ms Sinha's contention is untenable. 5.8 If that be the position, the argument of the respondent that petition was filed pre-maturely on 28.05.2013 would be of no consequence; as the period of thirty (30) days would count from the date of receipt of notice dated 04.02.2013. Pertinently, as facts called out above would demonstrate that the respondent had not,....