Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Primus Chemicals Ltd. vs M/S Arrowhead Separations ... on 27 February, 2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Arbitration Case No.28/2007
(M/s Primus Chemicals Ltd. Vs. M/s Arrowhead Separations Engineering
Pvt. Ltd.)
Indore, Dated: 27/2/2018
Shri Sanjeev Kumar Rawat, Director of the applicant
company present in person.
Shri A.S. Kutumble, learned senior advocate with Shri B.S.
Gandhi, learned counsel for the respondent.
Heard on IA No.1467/2018 which is an application at the instance of respondent seeking review of the order dated 1/2/2018 passed by this Court.
This Court vide order dated 1/2/2018 had heard the counsel for the parties on the issue of appointment of the arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Act) and had decided the objections raised by the respondent in this regard.
Learned counsel for the respondent pressing the review application submits that the standard engineering which had placed the order has not been impleaded and that the present application under Section 11 of the Act of 1996 is not maintainable because the arbitration clause refers to the Arbitration Act, 1940 and that the claim is a dead claim and this Court has no territorial jurisdiction.
The applicant present in person opposing the review application has submitted that all these issue have already been examined in detail.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the order dated 1/2/2018 it is noticed that each of the ground which the applicant has argued today in support of the review application was urged at the time when the order dated 1/2/2018 was passed. All these grounds have duly been examined by this Court in the order dated 1/2/2018 and this Court has found that the arbitration agreement exists between the parties to this arbitration case and that this Court has territorial jurisdiction and the application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is maintainable and the claim made by the applicant is not a dead claim.
Hence, there is no error apparent on the face of the record and no case for review of the order is made out. The review application is accordingly dismissed.
This Court vide a detailed order dated 1/2/2018 after deciding the various objection raised by the respondent had found that an independent arbitrator need be appointed for resolving the dispute between the parties and had accordingly proposed name of Justice Shri I.S. Shrivastava, retired High Court Judge and had directed to seek the declaration from the proposed arbitrator in terms of Section 11 (8) and 12 (1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the prescribed form as contained in 6th Schedule of the Act.
The declaration dated 26/2/2018 has been received from the proposed arbitrator and the said declaration reveals that the proposed arbitrator has no difficulty in taking up the matter in arbitration.
Accordingly, the arbitration case is allowed and Shri I.S. Shrivastava (Retd.High court Judge) is appointed as Arbitrator for resolving the dispute between the parties.
Parties are directed to appear before the learned arbitrator on 2/4/2018.
(Prakash Shrivastava) Judge BDJ Digitally signed by Bhuneshwar Datt Date: 2018.03.01 11:42:37 -08'00'