Calcutta High Court
Korp Resources Pvt. Ltd vs Hari Machines Ltd. & Anr on 20 November, 2017
Author: Ashis Kumar Chakraborty
Bench: Ashis Kumar Chakraborty
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
AP 984 of 2017
KORP RESOURCES PVT. LTD.
Versus
HARI MACHINES LTD. & ANR.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHIS KUMAR CHAKRABORTY
Date : 20th November, 2017.
Appearance:
Mr. Moinak Bose, Adv.
Mr. S. Sen, Adv.
Ms. Riti Basu, Adv.
The Court : In this application under Section 14 read with Section 15 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it is a case of the petitioner that by an order
dated July 13, 2015 passed in AP 1064 of 2015, a learned Single Judge of this Court
appointed a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties by recording
the submission made on behalf of the parties that the reference should not take more
than six months after the completion of the pleadings.
However, the arbitral proceeding could not be concluded on the ground that the
respondents alleged before the learned sole Arbitrator that it was registered to the Board
of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and, as such, the arbitral proceedings could not be continued against it.
Such plea of the respondents is accepted by the learned sole Arbitrator. However, in the meantime, with the enactment of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Repeal Act, 2003, the reference of the respondents before the BIFR stood automatically abated and since the respondents had not been referred to the 2 National Company Law Tribunal under the provision of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, there is no bar for the learned sole Arbitrator for continuance of the arbitral proceeding against the respondents.
The learned sole Arbitrator is yet to take any step to conduct the arbitral proceeding.
Ms. Riti Basu, learned advocate for the respondents also submits that the respondents had not been referred to the National Company Law Tribunal under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
In view of the facts of the case as discussed above, instead of appointing a new Arbitrator as prayed for by the petitioner with consent of the petitioner, as well as the respondents represented through Ms. Riti Basu, the learned sole Arbitrator appointed by the order dated July 13, 2015 is directed to proceed with the arbitral proceeding on the basis of the pleadings already filed by the respective parties.
Since the delay in conclusion of the arbitral proceeding is not due to any inaction on the part of the learned sole Arbitrator, the parties are directed to pay an additional remuneration of Rs. 4 lakhs to be shared by them in equal proportion.
The learned sole Arbitrator is requested to conclude the arbitral proceedings within a period of five months from the date of communication of this order.
With the above directions, AP 984 of 2017 is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(ASHIS KUMAR CHAKRABORTY, J.) G.S.Das