Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
Terming the fees being charged by arbitrators for resolving disputes between Parsvnath and Chandigarh Housing Board (CHB) in regard to the multi-crore mega project Prideasia as very high and limitless,the CHB on Wednesday moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Taking stock of its contentions,a division bench headed by Justice Hemant Gupta stayed the proceedings pending before the tribunal comprising three arbitrators Chief Justice of India (Retd) G B Patnaik,retired Supreme Court Justice D P Wadhwa and retired Punjab and Haryana High Court Justice Amar Dutt.
Staying further proceedings pending before the tribunal till July 6,the high court issued notices to Parsvnath and the three arbitrators asking them to respond to the contentions raised by CHB in its petition.
Appearing on behalf of CHB,Advocate Sanjay Kaushal contended that till now,the CHB has paid over Rs 80 lakh to the three arbitrators. Each have been paid Rs 26 lakh,he added.
According to CHB,it had requested the tribunal to reduce the fees of the three arbitrators from Rs 1.50 lakh each to Rs 25,000. But the tribunal had declined the request on May 2. Aggrieved,the CHB moved the high court. It also demanded that the order of the tribunal,demanding remaining payment as well as advance amount,be stayed.
Kaushal challenged orders dated December 18,2009,April 9,2010 and February 28,2011,in which,arbitrators had decided their fees and also rejected the CHBs request to reduce their fees. The CHB petition added that for 20 sittings,Rs 39 lakh has been paid on account of arbitrators fees. Also,former arbitrator of the tribunal,Justice S C Agrawal,was paid Rs 12.60 lakh.
Apart from the fees,parties before the tribunal have also been burdened with the expense of providing for travel,boarding and lodging arrangements for the arbitrators. Owing to the stature of arbitrators,the same has necessarily had to be in the premium classes, the petition read.
The CHB has also objected to the tribunals decision that sessions from 10.30 am to 4.30 pm would be counted as two sittings. The petitioner has submitted that the order does not record any consent by the parties.
Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram