# Smt. Payal Agarwal l v. Vinay Kumar Agarwal Opp. Party

- **Citation:** (2014) 3 ILRA 1211
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-08-07
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Transfer Application No. 19 of 2014
- **Bench:** Mohd. Tahir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-payal-agarwal-l-v-vinay-kumar-agarwal-opp-party-43099
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Arbitration and Reconciliation Act-199611(6)-Application
for
appointment
of
arbitrator-on
ground
award
given
by
arbitrator-set-a-side by District Judge and
remanded for fresh consideration-argument
that
remand
without
appointment
of
arbitration-hence
present
application-in
absence
of
pleading
about
death
of
previous arbitrator-without opportunity of
contradiction-can
not
be
basis
for
appointment
of
new
arbitrator-heldapplication not maintainable.
Held: Para-17
In the entire body of the application
nowhere it has been stated that Shri R.D.
Maheshwari
has
expired
and
that
therefore it was necessary to appoint a
new
Arbitrator.
It
is
only
in
the
chronology list of dates and events that
it has been stated that Shri R.D.
Maheshwari
had
expired
in
the
meantime. However, since this fact has
not been categorically stated in the
application under Section 11(6) of the
Act, 1996 and does not appear to be
correct in view of the categorical denial
of his death in paragraph 3 of the
counter affidavit and undenied by the
applicant, I do not find any illegality or
infirmity
if
the
dispute
has
been
remanded to Shri R.D. Maheshwari to
consider afresh in the light of the
observations made by the District Judge.
Case Law discussed:
(2006) 6 SCC 204; (2006) 10 SCC 763; (2012)
7 SCC 71.

## Text

3 All]. Smt. Payal Agarwal Vs. Vinay Kumar Agarwal
1211
applications and to dismiss the petition at
the threshold as if fails the test of stating
complete cause of action.
56. However, in the circumstances
of the case, no order as to costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.08.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MOHD. TAHIR, J.
Civil Misc. Transfer Application No. 19 of
2014
Smt. Payal Agarwal
l Applicant
Versus
Vinay Kumar Agarwal
...Opp. Party
Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Vaibhav Kaushik
Counsel for the Opp. Party:
Sri Swetashwa Agarwal
Code of Civil Procedure Section-24Transfer of divorce petition- pending
before
Family
Court
Lucknow
to
Muzaffarnagar-High Court at Allahabadno jurisdiction-except Lucknow Benchheld-instead of rejection-liberty to file
before
appropriate
Bench-record
of
transfer
application-registry
to
send
before Lucknow Bench.
Case Law discussed:
AIR 1976 SC 331; LAWS (All)-1997-12-59; AIR
1988 All 48; AIR 1953 All 99.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mohd. Tahir, J.)
1.
Case called out. Counsels for
both the parties are present.
2. The applicant wife is seeking
transfer of Divorce Petition No.1631 of
2013 (Vinay Kumar Agarwal vs. Smt.
Payal Agarwal), u/s 13 of Hindu Marriage
Act, pending before the Principal Judge,
Family Court, Lucknow to Muzaffarnagar
on the ground of her convenience and that
certain proceedings between the parties
are pending at Muzaffarnagar.
3. Heard learned counsels for both
the parties on the point of maintainability
of this transfer application in this Court at
Allahabad and perused the record.
4. Admittedly, the case sought to be
transferred relates to district Lucknow.
According to the ruling of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court given in the case of
Nasiruddin vs. State Transport Appellate
Tribunal, AIR 1976 SC 331 as well as the
ruling of the Allahabad High Court given
in the case of Jyotsan Dixit vs. Civil
Judge, Khiri, reported in LAWS (All)-
1997-12-59, this transfer application is
not
maintainable
in
this
Court
at
Allahabad but the same is maintainable
before Lucknow Bench of Allahabad
High Court. In the case of Sushma vs.
Vikramaditya, AIR 1988 All 48 also in
which the Division Bench ruling of this
Court, namely, Nem Chand vs. The State,
AIR 1953 All 99 has been referred to, it
has been held that a proceeding under
Section 24 C.P.C. is to be initiated before
the Bench within whose jurisdiction the
suit sought to be transferred, is pending.
In the case of Nasiruddin (supra), it has
also been held that if any case has been
mistakenly or inadvertently entertained at
Allahabad, a direction should be made to
the High Court Office to transmit the
papers of the case to Lucknow instead of
returning back the case for filing before
the Judges at Lucknow.
5. Since the case at hand has been
entertained at Allahabad vide order dated
1212
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
27.1.2014, so it will not be proper for
returning the same to the applicant for
filing it before Lucknow Bench. Under
these
circumstances,
this
transfer
application is transferred to the Lucknow
Bench with notice to both the learned
counsel. Record be sent to the Lucknow
Bench within two weeks and the same be
listed subject to permission of the court
concerned.
6. Registry is directed to take
necessary action for transferring this case
to Lucknow Bench.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.09.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE B. AMIT STHALEKAR, J.
Arbitration Application No. 34 of 2013
G K Traders Sole Proprietorship
Applicant
Versus
UPPCL
...Opp. Party
Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Jaspreet Singh
Counsel for the Opp. Party:
Sri M.P. Yadav
Arbitration and Reconciliation Act-199611(6)-Application
for
appointment
of
arbitrator-on
ground
award
given
by
arbitrator-set-a-side by District Judge and
remanded for fresh consideration-argument
that
remand
without
appointment
of
arbitration-hence
present
application-in
absence
of
pleading
about
death
of
previous arbitrator-without opportunity of
contradiction-can
not
be
basis
for
appointment
of
new
arbitrator-heldapplication not maintainable.
Held: Para-17
In the entire body of the application
nowhere it has been stated that Shri R.D.
Maheshwari
has
expired
and
that
therefore it was necessary to appoint a
new
Arbitrator.
It
is
only
in
the
chronology list of dates and events that
it has been stated that Shri R.D.
Maheshwari
had
expired
in
the
meantime. However, since this fact has
not been categorically stated in the
application under Section 11(6) of the
Act, 1996 and does not appear to be
correct in view of the categorical denial
of his death in paragraph 3 of the
counter affidavit and undenied by the
applicant, I do not find any illegality or
infirmity
if
the
dispute
has
been
remanded to Shri R.D. Maheshwari to
consider afresh in the light of the
observations made by the District Judge.
Case Law discussed:
(2006) 6 SCC 204; (2006) 10 SCC 763; (2012)
7 SCC 71.
(Delivered by Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.)
1. This is an application filed under
section 11(6) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 ( the Act, 1996)
praying for appointment of an Arbitrator
to resolve the dispute between the
applicant and the respondent.
2.
Briefly stated the facts of the case
are that tenders were invited for sale of 15.6
Megawatt Power House at Chandausi
District Moradabad. The said power plant
was to be sold on "as is where is" basis. The
applicant's bid was found to be the highest
bid at Rs.2,21,56,000/-. The agreement was
signed between the applicant and the
respondent on 18.5.1996 but thereafter some
dispute arose between the parties with regard
to implementation of the contract. The
applicant submitted an application before the
Chairman/Managing Director of the U.P.
Power Corporation Ltd. ( U.P. PCL) to