IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 189 OF 2010

(Arising out of SLP [C] No.13567 of 2009)

C.M.C. Ltd. … Appellant Vs. Madhya Pradesh Stock Exchange & Anr. … Respondent

O R D E R

Leave granted. Heard the counsel.

2. An Arbitral award dated 20.10.2003 was made in favour  of the appellant in a claim against the first respondent.  The first respondent filed an application under Section 34  of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’ for  short)  for  setting  aside  the  said  award.  The  said  application was dismissed for non-prosecution on 27.6.2006.  The first respondent filed an application under Order IX,  Rules  4  and  9  read  with  section  151  of  Code  of  Civil  Procedure  (‘Code’  for  short)  for  setting  aside  the  dismissal. The appellant raised a preliminary objection that  the  petition  was  not  maintainable.  Learned  Additional  District Judge, Indore, before whom the said application was  made by order dated 5.8.2008, held that the application for

setting aside the dismissal, was maintainable. The appellant  challenged the said order by filing a writ petition before  the  Madhya  Pradesh  High  Court.  The  High  Court,  by  the  impugned order dated 12.12.2008 dismissed the writ petition  filed by the appellant holding that the appropriate remedy  was by way of revision under Section 115 of CPC. The said  order is challenged in this appeal by special leave.

3. After the matter was heard for some time, the learned  counsel for the appellant submitted that the matter has been  pending for nearly six years after the award, and to avoid  any further delay and to ensure that the proceedings under  Section 34 were completed expeditiously, the appellant will  have no objection for the dismissal for non-prosecution,  being set aside and the application under Section 34 being  restored to file, provided the first respondent agreed to  co-operate  with  the  Court  for  summary  disposal  of  the  proceedings.  

4. This Court in  Fiza Developers & Inter-Trade (P) Ltd.  V. AMCI (I) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. 2009 (11) SCALE 371, has held  that having regard to the object of the Act, which was to  provide expeditious alternative binding dispute resolution  process  with  the  minimal  court  intervention,  proceedings  under Section 34 of the Act, are intended to be summary  proceedings and not full fledged trials in the manner of  civil suits under the Code. In view of it, learned counsel  

2

for the first respondent did not dispute the position that  the proceedings under Section 34 will have to be disposed of  expeditiously and assured that the first respondent will  cooperate with the civil court for early disposal of the  proceedings  under  Section  34  of  the  Act,  as  summary  proceedings.

5. In view of the above, there is no need to examine the  question  of  law raised  in  this  appeal  (relating  to  maintainability of writ petition) on merits. By consent and  in exercise of our power to do complete justice, we set  aside  the  order  dated  27.6.2006  dismissing  the  first  respondent’s application under Section 34 of the Act, allow  the same and restore A.C No. 1/2005 to file with a request  to the learned Addl. District Judge, Indore to dispose of  the  said  application  under  Section  34  of  the  Act  expeditiously,  preferably  within  four  months.  As  a  consequence the proceedings in MJC 14/2006 on the file of  the 15th Addl. District Judge, Indore shall stand disposed  of. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.  

…………………………………………….J. (R V Raveendran)

New Delhi; ……………………………………………….J. January 8, 2010. (K S Radhakrishnan)     

3