2019 (7) TMI 1844

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s order dated 18.10.2016, has indicated that the appellant can very well raise the plea whether they should be impleaded as necessary party or not, since the learned Arbitrator having been seized of the matter, has come to the conclusion that once the pleadings are complete, then the claim of the appellant whether they are necessary parties or not could be decided. The reason being that when Ms.Kocon India Pvt. Ltd. has come to this Court with O.S.A. Nos.324 and 409 of 2012, the learned Division Bench in its order dated 18.10.2016, while appointing Mr.Justice K.Venkataraman, a retired Judge of this Court as a Sole Arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause, has rightly indicated that the grievance of the appellant may be considered on be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t, by order dated 18.10.2016 accepting the consent of both the parties, appointed Mr.Justice K.Venkataraman, a retired Judge of this Court as a Sole Arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause, to enter upon the reference and adjudicate the disputes inter se the parties. Again the appellant has re-visited this Court by Review Application Nos.115 and 116 of 2016 raising a plea that when there is no arbitral clause in the tripartite agreement, the appellant need not be impleaded as a necessary party as the matter has to be resolved between the respondents. But this Court directed the appellant to approach the Arbitrator and raise a plea for adjudication thereof. 4.Accordingly, when the matter was relegated back to the learned Arbitrator, a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Finding merits on the above submissions made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, as mentioned above, the issue as to whether the name of the appellant should be deleted or impleaded has to be answered only by the Arbitrator. Therefore, the impugned order does not give rise to file appeal. 8.At this stage, learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent drawing the notice of this Court to Section 29(A)(4) of the Act, requested this Court to exclude the time taken by the appellant in prosecuting the matter by filing the present C.M.A. failing which, the award could not be passed and the same would be enforced in the light of Section 29(A)(4) a....