AP No. 754 of 2022 · Calcutta High Court

Mr. Chayan Gupta, Advocate Mr. Sayan Ganguly, Advocate Mr. Arnab Sardar, Advocate … for petitioner. Mr. Debraj Sahoo, Advocate Mr. Sitikantha Mitra, Advocate … for respondent.

This is an application for appointment of an arbitrator in respect of three work orders namely Work Order Nos. WO30033003/150101000001 dated 1st January 2015, WO30033003/150501000003 dated 1st May 2015 and WO30033003/151201000001 dated 1st March 2016. The petitioner submits that each of these work orders was issued in respect of one project for construction of a jetty at Mundra, Gujarat. All the work orders contain similar arbitration clauses and the venue of arbitration is Kolkata. The petitioner contends that payments were made against the three work orders in a lumpsum. The petitioner relies on the tax invoices and the bank statements in support of such contention. The petitioner also relies on a certificate issued by the respondent, in support of the contention that 2 the certificate was issued upon completion of the works arising out of all the three work orders.

Mr. Sahoo submits that the three work orders are separate and distinct. Invocation is defective. Separate invocation in respect of each of the arbitration clauses in the said work orders should have been made. He denies the allegation of non-payment and submits that all the claims were settled and there was no surviving arbitrable dispute.

The Court has considered the work orders and it is found that the three work orders arise out of the project, namely, “construction of a jetty at Mundra, Gujarat”. The payments and the invoices also indicate that composite invoices may have been raised and payments may have been released in a lumpsum against the claims in respect of the three work orders. With regard to the issues raised by Mr. Sahoo, this Court is of the view that whether there is a surviving arbitrable dispute or not and whether the claims are inadmissible, are matters of evidence. Under such circumstances, keeping all the objections of Mr. Sahoo open, and to be decided by the learned arbitrator, a composite reference is made by this Court, upon holding that as the work orders and the disputes arise out of the same project at Mundra, Gujarat, a composite reference would be convenient. It will avoid multiplicity of proceedings and save costs.

Under such circumstances, this Court allows the application and refers the disputes to a sole arbitrator. This Court appoints Mr. Debdut Mukherjee, Advocate (Mobile: 8240441229) as the learned arbitrator, to 3 arbitrate upon the disputes between the parties. This appointment is subject to compliance of Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The learned arbitrator shall fix his remuneration as per the Schedule of the Act.