Also at v. Application under section 11(6) ofthe Arbitration
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
e applications are disposed of with an
Provisions considered
Judgment
iearned Shri V.R. Rao, Advocate for the petitioner in M.C.C.No. 171/05. counsel with Shri Vinod Deshmukh, fjfl.C.C.No. 52/05 and for respondent Shri Anil Pandey, M.C.C.171/05 and for respondenl) counsel in M.C.C.No. 52/05. petitioner Since the petitioner in M.C| 171/05^ vice versa, both these| .C.No. 52/05 is respondent in M.C.C.No. appiications are disposed of by this common order. The PECPL has preferred| Section 11(6) ofthe Arbitration atjid an application {M.C.C.No. 52/05} uncfer Concifiation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator in the capacity of [tietitioner Learned counset for the PtCPL submits that a dispute with respect to non-payment of Rs. 53,46,; ?!p0/- 3!DO/ towards the consultancy fees was raised by it. When the dispute s4 raised was not resolved, a notice dated
15.12.2004 addressed to the lASL was sent by the PECPL invota'ng arbitration clause of the contract Shri Justice P.K. Jain, retired Jud^e to be appointed as arbitrator on| [igreement, whereby the name of Hon'ble ofthe Delhi High Courtwas proposed their behalf to settle the dispute arose between them and called upon 14SL to confirm the nomination of Hon'ble Shri Justice P.K. Jain (Retd.) to from the date of receipt of that appointed as arbitrator within 30 days n|otice. However, the IASL by their reply dated 20th January 2005 did not | Hon'ble Shri Justice P.K. Jain |consent to the proposed appointment of ](Retd.) as sole arbitrator and also no ^ P.T.O. ^ XI-HC-78 3:c?srpn^pr^ t(T)1u'i<o, fciditiL}< m^.^.^.?.^:. *TTH<'TT^W<^ ^ 200 3T1^?TMach (yil^q^ff) —?- •W^r^iTR-li'b g^TTSTT^Tsh^lc^ s^iTWHf^rsn^r wrfepftr WTcff ff 1WI rf^FRK ^73Tl^T3n^T DroDosal was made on behalf of lASL for aDDointment of arbitrator bv the said reply.
Hence, the instant aprilication i.e. M.C.C. No. 52/05 has been filed for appointment of sole arbitra|t tor. Subsequent to filing of this application being M.C.C.No. 171/0f and Conciliation Act with respect tc( petition the IASL has also preferred an 5 under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration the same.contract agreement. It is not in dispute that the parties enl^red into a contract agreement engineering and consultancy servfi stipulation of this contract agreeifient consulting engineer (PECPL) and and eonditions hereof or their int^rpretation the courts at Raipur only & exclusjvely ces on 02nd April 2003 and as per the any dispute<arising between the the client (IASL) in regard to the terms shall have the jurisdiction of and the dispute shall be settled by arbitrator in terms of the provision^ 1996. of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, The contract agreement also not in dispute that the be^iveen the parties is not in dispute. arti|es have agreed to refer their dispute It is parti|es arising out of the contract agree| procedure is prescribed in the cor|i by notice dated 15.12.2004 prop4 P.K. Jain (Retd.) to be appointed ^ consent the proposed name which| IASL vide reply dated 20.01 .200^, j, disputed that.the dispute betwe^n [nent to the sole arbitrator though no |itract agreement.
Operative part
The fact that PECPL jised the name of Hon'ble Shri Justice )s sole arbitrator, requested the IASL to was subsequently turned down by the is also not in dispute. It is also not the parties can be referred to an arbitrator whteh is within the jurisdii| ttion ofthisCourt. .0. XI-HC-78 3^ "ifl'Mld^, OTn'H'IS, Rclldy HIHdl S»rHI<»i »•»»****.******»A <-» *,» » ^R; 200 3TT^?T4ach (li<:l^€l<^£r) - 3- ari^rwf^TN; craTSffl^rginNi CTciTW^fN'sn^r qirafrpft? WRff ff te^l-ri^TRK ^sif^Tan^r As a result, both thes e applications are disposed of with an observation that it is a fit case ft>r appointment of arbitrator for adjudication ^T.. of the dispute. However, at the time of| the proceedings that they hav4 Court is appointed as the sole 4 hearing it was submitted by the parties to no objection if any retired Judge of High rbitrator to adjudicate the dispute. I, therefore, hereby appfsint Hon'ble Shri Justice C.P. Sen, retired Judge of M.P. High Court, Jab^lpur, presently Marg, 205, Congress Nagar, N|agpur-440012, as Arbitrator, subject to his at Jnanranjan Sen 'residing consent.
1 The Hon'ble Arbitrator may settle his terms and conditions and remunerations. Registry to intimate Hon[ble Shri Justice C.P. Sen, retired Judge of M.P. High Court, about his ap||)ointment as Arbitrator and to send all the papers along with address ofth|e parties. Parties are also directed|to approach Hon'ble Shri Justice C.P. Sen (Retd.), who is presently residii|ig at Jnanranjan Sen Marg, 205, Congress Nagar, Nagpur and to subm|t papers and to take part in arbitration proceedings. —' ^l^ ^^¥ -^y <f~ - 7^v ^ Sd/- ; Dhu-endra Mishra" Judge P.T.O.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: e applications are disposed of with an
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Compames Act, 1956; Companies Act, 2013; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 11(6); Concifiation Act, 1996.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Chhattisgarh High Court, on 20 Jan 2005. The bench was P K JAIN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.