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.
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
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.
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
1534
Thanks sir
Sir,
Is under Section 37(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is in favour of respondent.
Petitioner Arbitration sec 8 is already dismissed by District court Educational Tribunal Gurgaon and after dismiss Petitioner DPSG school take Direction to high court and service matter pending in District court Educational Tribunal Gurgaon since 2018
Proceeding will be going on final order shall not be passed mention in high court order
High court order
Kindly advice which step will take for get result earlier it's service matter of illegal termination with out show cause notice
Thanks and regards
From India, Gurgaon
Sir,
Is under Section 37(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is in favour of respondent.
Petitioner Arbitration sec 8 is already dismissed by District court Educational Tribunal Gurgaon and after dismiss Petitioner DPSG school take Direction to high court and service matter pending in District court Educational Tribunal Gurgaon since 2018
Proceeding will be going on final order shall not be passed mention in high court order
High court order
Kindly advice which step will take for get result earlier it's service matter of illegal termination with out show cause notice
Thanks and regards
From India, Gurgaon
Thanks sir
Sir,
Is under Section 37(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is in favour of respondent.
Petitioner Arbitration sec 8 is already dismissed by District court Educational Tribunal Gurgaon and after dismiss Petitioner DPSG school take Direction to high court and service matter pending in District court Educational Tribunal Gurgaon since 2018
Proceeding will be going on final order shall not be passed mention in high court order
High court order
Kindly advice which step will take for get result earlier it's service matter of illegal termination with out show cause notice
Thanks and regards
From India, Gurgaon
Sir,
Is under Section 37(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is in favour of respondent.
Petitioner Arbitration sec 8 is already dismissed by District court Educational Tribunal Gurgaon and after dismiss Petitioner DPSG school take Direction to high court and service matter pending in District court Educational Tribunal Gurgaon since 2018
Proceeding will be going on final order shall not be passed mention in high court order
High court order
Kindly advice which step will take for get result earlier it's service matter of illegal termination with out show cause notice
Thanks and regards
From India, Gurgaon
The Court has found favour with the contention of the petitioner that as per the contract of appointment, any dispute had to 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 has to be represented in the hearings, otherwise, the court may pass an order with the one-sided facts presented before it, which is not in the interests of justice
From India, Mumbai
It appears the opposite party did not enter an appearance, it is very necessary that the party has to be represented in the hearings, otherwise, the court may pass an order with the one-sided facts presented before it, which is not in the interests of justice
From India, Mumbai
R/S/M,Good afternoon
kindly tell given below order CR 5221of 2019 DATE 28-05-2024 is in whose favor of petitioner or responent and if this order can submitted in other service matter (Attach given below) in which same arbitration clause than this order can work vacate stay
Thanks
From India, Gurgaon
kindly tell given below order CR 5221of 2019 DATE 28-05-2024 is in whose favor of petitioner or responent and if this order can submitted in other service matter (Attach given below) in which same arbitration clause than this order can work vacate stay
Thanks
From India, Gurgaon
R/S/M,Good afternoon
kindly tell given below order CR 5221of 2019 DATE 28-05-2024 is in whose favor of petitioner or responent and if this order can submitted in other service matter (Attach given below) in which same arbitration clause than this order can work vacate stay
Thanks
From India, Gurgaon
kindly tell given below order CR 5221of 2019 DATE 28-05-2024 is in whose favor of petitioner or responent and if this order can submitted in other service matter (Attach given below) in which same arbitration clause than this order can work vacate stay
Thanks
From India, Gurgaon
https://www.citehr.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=172993 https://www.citehr.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=172994
From India, Gurgaon
From India, Gurgaon
R/S/M,Good afternoon
kindly tell given below order CR 5221of 2019 DATE 28-05-2024 is in whose favor of petitioner or responent and if this order can submitted in other service matter (Attach given below) in which same arbitration clause than this order can work vacate stay
Thanks
From India, Gurgaon
kindly tell given below order CR 5221of 2019 DATE 28-05-2024 is in whose favor of petitioner or responent and if this order can submitted in other service matter (Attach given below) in which same arbitration clause than this order can work vacate stay
Thanks
From India, Gurgaon
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present: Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate
for therespondent.
****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J.
1.By way of instant revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has moved this Court for setting aside order dated 08.07.2019, Annexure P-4, passed by the learned District Judge Gurugram, whereby petitioner's application for reference of dispute to an Arbitrator under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, (for short “the Arbitration Act”), was rejected.
2. 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 insufficient number of students and his service was terminated vide letterdated 25.01.2019 by paying him three months salary in lieu of the notice period. He submits that the respondent challenged the order before theDistrict Judge, Gurugram, who has been designated as an EducationTribunal in terms of notification dated 07.05.2013 issued under thedirections 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 vide order impugned herein. While making a reference to the judgment in Pravin Electricals Private Limited Versus Galaxy Infra andEngineering Private Limited (2021) 5 SCC 671, counsel has contended thatthe tribunal has to restrict itself to prima facie examination of the existenceof an arbitration agreement while considering the application under Section8, 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 submissionthat the tribunal has erred in placing reliance upon the judgment in M/s SconContracts versus Neena Dhingra 2007 (30) RCR (Civil) 853, which dealtwith a matter where the parties had not entered into a written agreement.
3. 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 a 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.
4. I have considered the rival submissions of counsel for the parties.
5. 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.”
6. 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, 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 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 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 application under Section 8, ibid, instant revision petition is not maintainable.
7. Without examining the legality of the impugned order on merits, 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 law.
R/S/M,Good afternoon
kindly tell given up order CR 5221of 2019 DATE 28-05-2024 is in whose favor of petitioner or responent and if this order can submitted in other service matter in which same arbitration sec 8 Application dismiss by Educational Trbunal clause than this order can work vacate stay in other service matter
Thanks
From India, Gurgaon
Present: Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate
for therespondent.
****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J.
1.By way of instant revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has moved this Court for setting aside order dated 08.07.2019, Annexure P-4, passed by the learned District Judge Gurugram, whereby petitioner's application for reference of dispute to an Arbitrator under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, (for short “the Arbitration Act”), was rejected.
2. 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 insufficient number of students and his service was terminated vide letterdated 25.01.2019 by paying him three months salary in lieu of the notice period. He submits that the respondent challenged the order before theDistrict Judge, Gurugram, who has been designated as an EducationTribunal in terms of notification dated 07.05.2013 issued under thedirections 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 vide order impugned herein. While making a reference to the judgment in Pravin Electricals Private Limited Versus Galaxy Infra andEngineering Private Limited (2021) 5 SCC 671, counsel has contended thatthe tribunal has to restrict itself to prima facie examination of the existenceof an arbitration agreement while considering the application under Section8, 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 submissionthat the tribunal has erred in placing reliance upon the judgment in M/s SconContracts versus Neena Dhingra 2007 (30) RCR (Civil) 853, which dealtwith a matter where the parties had not entered into a written agreement.
3. 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 a 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.
4. I have considered the rival submissions of counsel for the parties.
5. 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.”
6. 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, 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 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 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 application under Section 8, ibid, instant revision petition is not maintainable.
7. Without examining the legality of the impugned order on merits, 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 law.
R/S/M,Good afternoon
kindly tell given up order CR 5221of 2019 DATE 28-05-2024 is in whose favor of petitioner or responent and if this order can submitted in other service matter in which same arbitration sec 8 Application dismiss by Educational Trbunal clause than this order can work vacate stay in other service matter
Thanks
From India, Gurgaon
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
APFC, Gurgaon VS G4 Securitas (P unjab & Haryana High Court Order).pdf