TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 1252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at 140, Sunama House, August Kranti Marg, Mumbai-400 036. The petition was filed through one of the authorized representative of the company. It was alleged that the respondent no.1 is also a company and misleading the members of the Consortium along with the respondent Nos.2 to 4. The respondent Nos.1 to 4 are the members of Consortium which bid for development of City Centre Project for Ludhiana. It is alleged that respondent no.5 is also a statutory authority and is called the Ludhiana Improvement Trust vested with the responsibility of development of City of Ludhiana. It is alleged that respondent no.5 had invited tenders from eligible entities for implementing the construction of the City Centre Project at Ludhiana. 3. Pursuant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lating to the said agreement arising between the parties, the same would be referred to a sole arbitrator in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with the Seat of Arbitration at Delhi. 6. It is alleged that the respondent Nos.1 to 4 could not develop the said City Centre on account of the dispute having arisen between the respondent no.5 on the one hand and respondent Nos.1 to 4 on the other as there was a change of Government in the State of Punjab. The applicant had accordingly prayed for appointment of an arbitrator to the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and since the respondents had failed to appoint an arbitrator, consequently, the present petition has been filed. 7. The respondent nos.1 to 4 filed their respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ply by respondent no.5 shows that the main objection which has been raised by the respondent no.5 to the appointment of an arbitrator is that the agreement dated 24.5.2005 which is purported to have been executed between the respondent Nos.1 to 4 for and on behalf of the respondent no.5 in the capacity of an attorney could not be a ground for entitling the applicant to appoint an arbitrator in terms of the said agreement. It is alleged that the entire agreement dated 24.5.2005 was based on fraud, forgery and cheating as a consequence of which after vigilance inquiry against the officials of Ludhiana Improvement Trust by the IGP (Vigilance), a case bearing FIR No.5/2007 was registered on 23.3.2007 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 120 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s ultimately set aside by the Apex Court and the matter was remanded back to the High Court. It has been thus averred that after the receipt of the said order, the respondent Nos.1 to 4 have now chosen to get the dispute adjudicated between the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and the respondent no.5 with the help of the applicant/petitioner by filing the present application as a surrogate petition. 13. I have carefully considered the plea of the respondent no.5 as given in their reply. 14. The sum and substance of the challenge of the respondent no.5 is essentially challenging the jurisdiction of the arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute as well as the very factum of appointment of an arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause between ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
