Case Law Details
Vimlesh Bansal Vs Ashok Kumar (Rajasthan High Court)
The legal maxim ‘Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt’ literally translates to ‘the law assists only those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights’. The said legal maxim applies squarely to the present case where applicants did not take recourse of law available to them when the arbitrator terminated the proceedings on 29.11.2016 and have now preferred a second application under Section 11(5) of the Act, that too with inordinate delay and laches. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that once an application under Section 11(5) of the Act is allowed by the High Court and an arbitrator is appointed, a second application for appointment of the arbitrator does not lie, more particularly when the arbitrator has terminated the proceedings and the proper course available to the applicants was to file an application under Section 14(2) of the Act to challenge the order on the ground that they were not given proper notice.
The present application has been filed after 3 years and more than 7 months of the termination of the mandate of the arbitrator, which is clearly barred by limitation in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr. (supra). The judgment in Uttarkhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. (supra) has no applicability to the facts of this case as in the present case, there is a second application under Section 11(5) of the Act and the first application was allowed. The proceedings of the arbitrator was terminated and after a lapse of more than 3 years and 7 months, the present application has again been filed for appointment of an arbitrator. The present arbitration application therefore, deserves to be and the same is accordingly dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
1. The applicants have filed this arbitration application under Section 11(5) read with Section 11(6) and Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for appointment of a sole arbitrator for settlement of differences and disputes between the parties.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
