Artemis Medicare Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Chief Administrator, Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhrikaran

1 Arb. Case No. 173 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Arbitration Case No. 173 of 2019 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.05.2024 Artemis Medicare Services Pvt. Ltd. Gurugram .....Petitioner versus Chief Administrator, Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran, Panchkula. .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Present :

Mr. A.K.Sengupta, Advocate, Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Suraj Prakash, Advocate, Ms. Deblina Sengupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Sabharwal, Advocate, for the respondent. ****
 

  

  

  This petition has been filed by the petitioner for appointment of an arbitrator in terms of Clause 20 of the allotment letter dated 15.02.2006 (Annexure AC2) to adjudicate upon the disputes and differences between the parties. As per the allotment letter dated 15.02.2006, total 8.30 acres of land was allotted in favour of the petitioner for setting up a hospital in Sector 51, Gurgaon. Clause 20 of the allotment letter reads as under:C




 

     

  

           

 

               

      



     

    

     

 

 

    

  

     

  



      

   

    

     

  



                





            

         

    

   

   



          

     



       

    

2 Arb. Case No. 173 of 2019 2.

Apparently, at an earlier point of time, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition Nos. 24201 of 2017 and 14669 of 2018 which were disposed of on 04.07.2018 (Annexure AC24) by giving liberty to the petitioners to avail the benefit of OTS scheme/policy dated 15.05.2018 whereby the allottees were being offered concession to the extent of 40% of the outstanding amount but a rider had been imposed that they could not litigate qua the said concession in any manner. It was thus held that if the petitioners were left with any grievance, they shall be entitled to approach the appropriate forum including this Court for further relief. 3.

Apparently the petitioner vide letter dated 15.02.2019 (Annexure AC27) invoked the Arbitration ClauseC20 of the allotment letter and raised a demand for appointment of an arbitrator within a period of 30 days. It is not disputed that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in




   
     





the respondent as such cannot appoint any official and therefore, the needful has to be done by this Court.

4.

On an earlier occasion, the matter had been deferred since Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4440 of 2019 was pending before the Apex Court. Now this Court has been informed that the said Special Leave Petition has been dismissed as withdrawn on 05.02.2024. The relevant part of the order reads as under:C


       !



    

 

 

"              

  

          

 

      

  #  !  

 

  

         #  

"    $    

   

 

  

" 

      %       

 !     

  

  

    



3 Arb. Case No. 173 of 2019 5.

It is to be noticed that a bunch of Special Leave Petitions including Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 403 of 2019 arising out of Civil Writ Petition No. 16489 of 2018 was filed by the respondentCState of Haryana and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 05.02.2024. Apparently, all the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed as withdrawn and the Apex Court had given liberty to the respondentCState of Haryana to file a review application as the writ petitions had been disposed of without issuing notice to the other side. 6.

In the present case, both the parties had been heard as such and this Court has neither been informed that any review has been filed. In such circumstances, as per the allotment letter itself, there is a provision for appointment of an Arbitrator and the matter has been pending since long and a Coordinate Bench of this Court at that point of time had given liberty to the petitioners that the matter inter se the parties can be resolved by the Arbitrator. 7.

Resultantly, this petition stands disposed of by appointing Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel, former Judge of the Supreme Court of India, as nominated Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes and differences between the parties. Necessary declaration as required under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 be called from the proposed arbitrator by way of eCmail and be placed on record. In case the declaration as sought is not received or the Arbitrator expresses his inability to enter into the arbitration proceedings, liberty is granted to the parties to apply for appointment of fresh arbitrator.

(G.S.SANDHAWALIA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE 17.05.2024 ravinder Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable √Yes/No