Good evening, please advise in whose favor this order is: the respondent or the petitioner. Thank you.
Details are given below:
CWP-25172-2018,
CWP-31340-2018,
CWP-2985-2019,
CWP-31342-2018, and
CWP-31336-2018 (O&M)
DPSG Palam Vihar Gurugram vs Rajni Sharma and Another
Present: Mr. S. K. Manchanda, Advocate for Mr. A. S. Talwar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ajay Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondents.
There is a request for an adjournment as the arguing counsel for the petitioner is on his legs before a Coordinate Bench. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the writ petitions are not maintainable and, in fact, the petitioner ought to have approached under Section 37(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Adjourned to 24.01.2023. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected cases.
(JAISHREE THAKUR) JUDGE
From India, Gurgaon
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
Details are given below:
CWP-25172-2018,
CWP-31340-2018,
CWP-2985-2019,
CWP-31342-2018, and
CWP-31336-2018 (O&M)
DPSG Palam Vihar Gurugram vs Rajni Sharma and Another
Present: Mr. S. K. Manchanda, Advocate for Mr. A. S. Talwar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ajay Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondents.
There is a request for an adjournment as the arguing counsel for the petitioner is on his legs before a Coordinate Bench. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the writ petitions are not maintainable and, in fact, the petitioner ought to have approached under Section 37(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Adjourned to 24.01.2023. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected cases.
(JAISHREE THAKUR) JUDGE
From India, Gurgaon
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The court has agreed to the petitioner's request for adjourning the case, and it was listed for January 24, 2023. This order cannot be seen as in favor or against any party, as such requests for adjournments are granted in a routine manner.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
1593From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
Thanks, sir. Sir, under Section 37(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the decision is in favor of the respondent. The petitioner's arbitration under Section 8 has already been dismissed by the District Court Educational Tribunal, Gurgaon. After dismissal, the petitioner, DPSG school, sought direction from the High Court, and the service matter has been pending in the District Court Educational Tribunal, Gurgaon since 2018. The proceedings will continue, and a final order shall not be passed as mentioned in the High Court order. Kindly advise on the steps to take to expedite the process as it concerns a service matter of illegal termination without a show cause notice.
Thanks and regards.
From India, Gurgaon
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thanks and regards.
From India, Gurgaon
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thanks, sir. Sir, is it under Section 37(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in favor of the respondent? The petitioner's arbitration under Section 8 has already been dismissed by the District Court Educational Tribunal, Gurgaon. After the dismissal, the petitioner, DPSG School, sought direction from the High Court, and the service matter has been pending in the District Court Educational Tribunal, Gurgaon since 2018. Proceedings will continue, and a final order shall not be passed as mentioned in the High Court order. Kindly advise on the next steps to expedite the resolution as it is a service matter of illegal termination without a show cause notice.
Thanks and regards.
From India, Gurgaon
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thanks and regards.
From India, Gurgaon
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The Court has favored the petitioner's contention that, as per the contract of appointment, any dispute must be referred to arbitration. However, the Court has allowed the District Education Tribunal to continue the present proceedings, but it cannot pass the final order.
It appears the opposite party did not enter an appearance. It is very necessary that the party is represented in the hearings; otherwise, the court may pass an order based on the one-sided facts presented before it, which is not in the interests of justice.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
It appears the opposite party did not enter an appearance. It is very necessary that the party is represented in the hearings; otherwise, the court may pass an order based on the one-sided facts presented before it, which is not in the interests of justice.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
Good afternoon. Kindly inform me about the order CR 5221 of 2019 dated 28-05-2024. I would like to know if this order is in favor of the petitioner or respondent. Can this order be submitted in other service matters where the same arbitration clause applies? In that case, can this order work to vacate or stay?
Thanks
From India, Gurgaon
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thanks
From India, Gurgaon
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Good afternoon. Kindly advise on the following order CR 5221 of 2019 dated 28-05-2024. Is it in favor of the petitioner or respondent? Also, can this order be submitted in another service matter where there is the same arbitration clause? Will this order work to vacate a stay?
Thanks
From India, Gurgaon
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thanks
From India, Gurgaon
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Good afternoon. Kindly inform me about the order CR 5221 of 2019 dated 28-05-2024. Is it in favor of the petitioner or respondent? Can this order be submitted in another service matter with the same arbitration clause? If so, can this order work to vacate a stay?
Thanks
From India, Gurgaon
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thanks
From India, Gurgaon
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present: Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for the respondent.
Introduction
SUVIR SEHGAL, J. By way of an instant revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has moved this Court to set aside the order dated 08.07.2019, Annexure P-4, passed by the learned District Judge Gurugram, whereby the petitioner's application for the reference of the dispute to an Arbitrator under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Arbitration Act"), was rejected.
Background of the Case
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent was appointed as a Primary Teacher (PRT) Music for a few months in September 2005. He was confirmed, and a contract of service dated 22.03.2007, Annexure P-2, was entered into between the parties. He submits that the respondent was promoted as TGT on 02.04.2007 and was confirmed a year later. However, the post was discontinued due to an insufficient number of students, and his service was terminated via a letter dated 25.01.2019 by paying him three months' salary in lieu of the notice period. He submits that the respondent challenged the order before the District Judge, Gurugram, who has been designated as an Education Tribunal in terms of the notification dated 07.05.2013 issued under the directions of the Supreme Court in TMA Pai Foundation and others versus State of Karnataka and others (2002) 8 SCC 481. Counsel submits that as the contract of service contained an arbitration clause, an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act was filed, which after contest has been dismissed via the order impugned herein. While making a reference to the judgment in Pravin Electricals Private Limited Versus Galaxy Infra and Engineering Private Limited (2021) 5 SCC 671, counsel has contended that the tribunal has to restrict itself to a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement while considering the application under Section 8, ibid, and the tribunal has gone wrong in coming to the conclusion that there was no mutual agreement between the parties. It is also his submission that the tribunal has erred in placing reliance upon the judgment in M/s Scon Contracts versus Neena Dhingra 2007 (30) RCR (Civil) 853, which dealt with a matter where the parties had not entered into a written agreement.
Arguments by the Respondent
Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent has questioned the maintainability of the petition by inviting the attention of the Court to Section 37 (1) (a) of the Arbitration Act and submits that the instant revision petition is not maintainable. Referring to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, he has urged that the Education Tribunal is not a "judicial authority" within the purview of the statutory provision as it does not act judicially or exercise judicial power. Reference has also been made by him to Section 2 (3) of the Arbitration Act, which provides that the provisions of the Arbitration Act shall not affect any law for the time being enforced by virtue of which certain disputes may not be submitted to arbitration.
Court's Consideration
I have considered the rival submissions of counsel for the parties.
It is apposite to notice Section 37 (1) of the Arbitration Act, which is reproduced hereunder:
"37 (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from the following orders (and from no others) to the Court authorized by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the Court passing the order, namely:- (a) refusing to refer the parties to arbitration under section 8; (b) granting or refusing to grant any measure under section 9; (c) setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under section 34."
Arbitration Act is a special statute. Appeals under the Act can only be entertained by the Courts against the orders specifically mentioned in Section 37, ibid, and from no others. Examining the scheme of the Act, the Supreme Court in Chintels India Limited vs. Bhayana Builders Private Limited (2021) 4 SCC 602, has held that insofar as Section 37 (1) (a) is concerned, where a party is referred to arbitration under Section 8, ibid, no appeal lies. This is for the reason that the effect of such an order is that the parties must go to arbitration. It being left to the Arbitrator to decide the preliminary points under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act, which will then become the subject matter of appeal under Section 37 (2) (a) or the subject matter of grounds to set aside under Section 34 ibid an arbitral award ultimately made. Insofar as an order refusing the parties to arbitration under Section 8 ibid is concerned, it has to be passed on a prima facie examination of the arbitration agreement, and such an order is appealable under Section 37 (1) (a) of the Arbitration Act. As the statute specifically provides for the remedy of an appeal against an order rejecting an application under Section 8, ibid, the instant revision petition is not maintainable.
Without examining the legality of the impugned order on merits, the instant revision petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy available to it in accordance with the law.
Query on Order CR 5221 of 2019
R/S/M, Good afternoon kindly tell given up order CR 5221 of 2019 DATE 28-05-2024 is in whose favor of petitioner or respondent, and if this order can be submitted in another service matter in which the same arbitration sec 8 Application is dismissed by the Educational Tribunal clause, then this order can work vacate stay in another service matter. Thanks
From India, Gurgaon
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Present: Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for the respondent.
Introduction
SUVIR SEHGAL, J. By way of an instant revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has moved this Court to set aside the order dated 08.07.2019, Annexure P-4, passed by the learned District Judge Gurugram, whereby the petitioner's application for the reference of the dispute to an Arbitrator under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Arbitration Act"), was rejected.
Background of the Case
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent was appointed as a Primary Teacher (PRT) Music for a few months in September 2005. He was confirmed, and a contract of service dated 22.03.2007, Annexure P-2, was entered into between the parties. He submits that the respondent was promoted as TGT on 02.04.2007 and was confirmed a year later. However, the post was discontinued due to an insufficient number of students, and his service was terminated via a letter dated 25.01.2019 by paying him three months' salary in lieu of the notice period. He submits that the respondent challenged the order before the District Judge, Gurugram, who has been designated as an Education Tribunal in terms of the notification dated 07.05.2013 issued under the directions of the Supreme Court in TMA Pai Foundation and others versus State of Karnataka and others (2002) 8 SCC 481. Counsel submits that as the contract of service contained an arbitration clause, an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act was filed, which after contest has been dismissed via the order impugned herein. While making a reference to the judgment in Pravin Electricals Private Limited Versus Galaxy Infra and Engineering Private Limited (2021) 5 SCC 671, counsel has contended that the tribunal has to restrict itself to a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement while considering the application under Section 8, ibid, and the tribunal has gone wrong in coming to the conclusion that there was no mutual agreement between the parties. It is also his submission that the tribunal has erred in placing reliance upon the judgment in M/s Scon Contracts versus Neena Dhingra 2007 (30) RCR (Civil) 853, which dealt with a matter where the parties had not entered into a written agreement.
Arguments by the Respondent
Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent has questioned the maintainability of the petition by inviting the attention of the Court to Section 37 (1) (a) of the Arbitration Act and submits that the instant revision petition is not maintainable. Referring to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, he has urged that the Education Tribunal is not a "judicial authority" within the purview of the statutory provision as it does not act judicially or exercise judicial power. Reference has also been made by him to Section 2 (3) of the Arbitration Act, which provides that the provisions of the Arbitration Act shall not affect any law for the time being enforced by virtue of which certain disputes may not be submitted to arbitration.
Court's Consideration
I have considered the rival submissions of counsel for the parties.
It is apposite to notice Section 37 (1) of the Arbitration Act, which is reproduced hereunder:
"37 (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from the following orders (and from no others) to the Court authorized by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the Court passing the order, namely:- (a) refusing to refer the parties to arbitration under section 8; (b) granting or refusing to grant any measure under section 9; (c) setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under section 34."
Arbitration Act is a special statute. Appeals under the Act can only be entertained by the Courts against the orders specifically mentioned in Section 37, ibid, and from no others. Examining the scheme of the Act, the Supreme Court in Chintels India Limited vs. Bhayana Builders Private Limited (2021) 4 SCC 602, has held that insofar as Section 37 (1) (a) is concerned, where a party is referred to arbitration under Section 8, ibid, no appeal lies. This is for the reason that the effect of such an order is that the parties must go to arbitration. It being left to the Arbitrator to decide the preliminary points under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act, which will then become the subject matter of appeal under Section 37 (2) (a) or the subject matter of grounds to set aside under Section 34 ibid an arbitral award ultimately made. Insofar as an order refusing the parties to arbitration under Section 8 ibid is concerned, it has to be passed on a prima facie examination of the arbitration agreement, and such an order is appealable under Section 37 (1) (a) of the Arbitration Act. As the statute specifically provides for the remedy of an appeal against an order rejecting an application under Section 8, ibid, the instant revision petition is not maintainable.
Without examining the legality of the impugned order on merits, the instant revision petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy available to it in accordance with the law.
Query on Order CR 5221 of 2019
R/S/M, Good afternoon kindly tell given up order CR 5221 of 2019 DATE 28-05-2024 is in whose favor of petitioner or respondent, and if this order can be submitted in another service matter in which the same arbitration sec 8 Application is dismissed by the Educational Tribunal clause, then this order can work vacate stay in another service matter. Thanks
From India, Gurgaon
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Good evening, kindly advise in whose favor the order under Section 37(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is: the respondent or the petitioner. The petitioner's arbitration under Section 8 has already been dismissed by the District Court Educational Tribunal Gurgaon. After the dismissal, the petitioner, DPSG School, sought direction from the High Court, and the service matter has been pending in the District Court Educational Tribunal Gurgaon since 2018. Proceedings are ongoing, and a final order shall not be passed as mentioned in the High Court order. Kindly advise which steps to take to get a result earlier, as it's a service matter of illegal termination without a show cause notice. Thanks and regards.
From India, Gurgaon
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Gurgaon
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
APFC, Gurgaon VS G4 Securitas (P unjab & Haryana High Court Order).pdf