Whether chief justice can appoint arbitrator other than whose name is mentioned in arbitration agreement?

Thus, the issue is no more res integra. Though an
arbitrator is specified in the agreement for arbitration, if
circumstances so warrant, the Chief Justice or the designated
Judge is free to appoint an independent arbitrator, having due
regard to the qualification, if any, and other aspects as required
under Section 11(8) of the Act.
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4483 OF 2017

UNION OF INDIA 
V
BESCO LTD.
Dated:MARCH 27, 2017.
Citation: AIR 2017 SC 1628

Print Page

When application for appointment of arbitrator before chief justice is not tenable?

Once a judicial authority takes a decision under Section 8(1) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") declining to refer the dispute pending before it to arbitration and the said decision having become final, whether either party to the proceedings can thereafter invoke the jurisdiction of the Chief Justice under Section 11(6) of the Act, is the question arising for consideration in this case. The scope of Section 8(3) of the Act is also an ancillary issue.

The defendants/appellants had filed an application under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908[1] (hereinafter referred to as "the CPC"), as applicable to the State of Maharashtra, to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction since the partnership deed contained a provision for arbitration and hence the disputes were liable to be resolved in terms of the Act. In other words, application filed by defendants, in essence, was to be treated as an application under Section 8(1) of the Act. The same was opposed by the plaintiff. The trial court upheld the objection and held that it was within the jurisdiction of the court to try the dispute and, therefore, it was not required under law to refer the same to arbitration. The suit proceeded. The parties have examined all their witnesses. While so, the respondents herein approached the Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Arbitration Application No. 12/2013 under Section 11(6) of the Act seeking appointment of an arbitrator as per the terms of the partnership deed.

Under Section 8(1) of the Act, either party is free to apply to the judicial authority within the prescribed time to refer the parties to arbitration, in case the matter pending before it is the subject matter of an arbitration agreement. Section 8(3) of the Act however makes it clear that notwithstanding the application under Section 8(1) of the Act and the issue pending before the judicial authority, arbitration may be commenced or continued and an arbitral award can also be made. In other words, despite the pendency of an application under Section 8(1) of the Act before the judicial authority, Section 8(3) of the Act permits the parties to commence and continue the arbitration and the arbitral tribunal is free to pass an award. That alone is what is contemplated under Section 8(3) of the Act.

In the suit instituted by the firm and some of the respondents, the order passed by the civil court that it was well within its jurisdiction to try the suit, despite the objection regarding the existence of a clause for arbitration, has become final. Thereafter, Section 11(6) jurisdiction of the Chief Justice cannot be invoked by either party. The principle of res judicata will also be attracted in such a case.

Reportable

Supreme Court of India

Anil Jagannath Rana & Ors vs Rajendra Radhakishan Rana & ... on 18 December, 2014

Bench: Anil R. Dave, Kurian Joseph

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11604 /2014

[Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 15314 of 2014]

Citation:AIR 2015 SC(SUPP)501

Print Page

Whether chief justice of high court can transfer cases from HC bench to principal seat without hearing parties?

 It is well settled law that Hon'ble the Chief Justice
of a High Court is always the master of roster. It is
the prerogative of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to
allocate the judicial work to the Judges of the Court.
Hon'ble the Chief Justice decides which Judge shall

sit Single and which Judge shall sit in a Division
Bench. A Judge or a Bench of the High Court can
take up any particular case provided it is assigned by
the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. It is axiomatic that
when the Hon'ble the Chief Justice has power to
allocate judicial work to the Judges and different
Benches, he has a power to withdraw the matters
assigned to the Judges or Benches. The said power
is implicit as the Hon'ble the Chief Justice is the
master of roster. Therefore, the power to transfer the
matters filed at the Benches to the Principal Seat at
Mumbai and vice versa always vests in the Hon'ble
the Chief Justice. Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this
Court in exercise of his power as the master of roster
can always direct that a particular category of cases
pending before its Benches at Nagpur, Aurangabad
and Goa shall be heard at the Principal seat.
Similarly, Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court in
exercise of his power as the master of roster can
always direct that a particular category of cases
which ought to be filed before its Benches at
Nagpur, Aurangabad and Goa shall be filed and
heard at the Principal seat. While exercising the said
plenary power of transfer, the Hon'ble the Chief
Justice is under no obligation to hear the parties to
the proceedings;
 The orders of transfer of the Writ Petition No.9207 of
2011 and the Contempt Petition No.277 of 2012

have been passed in exercise of the power of the

Hon'ble the Chief Justice as the master of roster, and
therefore, the said orders cannot be interfered with.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.10048 OF 2012
WRIT PETITION NO.1860 OF 2014
WRIT PETITION NO.8182 OF 2012
W.P. NO.10048 OF 2012
Lawyers' Forum for General Utility
& Litigating Public, Aurangabad,
Through its President. .. Petitioner
Vs
1. The State of Maharashtra ,
2. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice,
3. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay,
Through its Registrar. .. Respondents


CORAM : A.S. OKA & G.S.KULKARNI, JJ

DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED: 11TH DECEMBER 2014
Citation;AIR 2015 (NOC) 517 Bom,2016(3) ALLMR613

Print Page

Whether Negative opinion of chief justice on point of sanction for prosecution of judge is binding on governor?

 The power to appoint Special Judge to try and decide the cases under the provisions of the Act of 1988 is with the Central Government or the State Government, as per section 3 of the Act. Sanction to prosecute the Judge of the subordinate Court, amongst whom appointment of a Special Judge is made, therefore, should be issued by the Governor - irrespective of the language of section 19(1)(c). However, as the opinion of the learned Chief Justice is binding on the Governor, for the same reason, even the negative opinion of the learned Chief Justice - not to prosecute the Judge of the subordinate Court - is equally binding on the Governor. Thus, in case of negative opinion, the question of processing the proposal any further, would not arise. In other words, the proposal 6 of 8

must stand terminated on expression of negative opinion by the learned Chief Justice. That is the process of decision making in case of refusal to accord sanction to prosecute the judicial officers of the subordinate Court.

Bombay High Court

Devendra S. Doctor vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 25 July, 2012

Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar, A. R. Joshi

JUDGEMENT (PER A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.):

Print Page

Chief Justice should not be arrayed as party in Writ Petition

Chief Justice should not be necessarily arrayed as party. High Court is represented by Registrar General who is entrusted with judicial and administrative matters of the court. He should be arrayed as party.

Karnataka High Court

Maverick Holdings And ... vs Registrar General on 1 October, 2009

Print Page