Calcutta High Court
Brahmaputra Infrastructure Limited vs West Bengal Housing Infrastructure ... on 2 August, 2016
Author: Soumen Sen
Bench: Soumen Sen
ORDER
AP No. 459 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
BRAHMAPUTRA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED
Versus
WEST BENGAL HOUSING INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN
Date : 2nd August, 2016.
Appearance:
Mr. Satadeep Bhattacharya, Advocate
Mr. Sagnik Basu, Advocate
Ms. Nidhi Bahal, Advocate
...for the petitioner.
Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Advocate
Mr. Chayan Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Sandip Dasgupta, Advocate
...for the respondent.
There is no dispute either as to the existence of arbitration agreement or that the disputes have arisen out of the said arbitration agreement and are required to be decided and resolved through arbitration. The parties are not in dispute that the disputes were covered by the arbitration clause and an Arbitrator is required to be appointed to decide the issues raised by the petitioner.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner has raised certain disputes and a notice for appointment of arbitrator was sent to the respondent on 6th August 2015. The appointing authority has 2 however failed to appoint an arbitrator within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the said request.
The appointing authority appears to have sat over the notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for a period of more than the judicially recognised outer limit of 30 days.
In view of the failure to appoint an arbitrator within the statutorily prescribed period of 30 days, the present request has been made for appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11 of the arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The petitioner says that upon the failure of the appointing authority to respond to the notice invoking arbitration agreement or appointing an arbitrator within the judicially recognised period of 30 days, such authority has forfeited its right to make any appointment and the Hon'ble Chief Justice and/or her designate can only appoint an arbitrator.
In view of the failure to appoint an Arbitrator within the judicially recognised period of 30 days, a valuable right has accrued in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner is entitled to carry such a request to the Chief Justice of this Court or her designate.
Under such circumstances, Mr. J. P. Khaitan, a senior advocate of this Court, is appointed as an arbitrator at a consolidated remuneration in accordance with the Fourth Schedule 3 to the Amended Act of 1996 to be shared by the parties in equal measure at the first instance subject to the direction as to costs as may be contained in the final Award. The Arbitrator is requested to conclude the reference within a period of 12 months of the statement of claim being lodged before him.
AP No. 459 of 2016 is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
( SOUMEN SEN, J. ) S. Kumar