Calcutta High Court
Srei Equipment Finance Limited vs Likproof India (P) Ltd on 22 February, 2017
Author: Sanjib Banerjee
Bench: Sanjib Banerjee
OD-37-44
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
AP No.1158 of 2015
SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED
-Versus-
LIKPROOF INDIA (P) LTD.
AP No.1159 of 2015
SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED
-Versus-
LIKPROOF INDIA (P) LTD.
AP No.1160 of 2015
SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED
-Versus-
LIKPROOF INDIA (P) LTD.
AP No.1161 of 2015
SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED
-Versus-
LIKPROOF INDIA (P) LTD.
AP No.166 of 2016
SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED
-Versus-
LIKPROOF INDIA (P) LTD.
AP No.169 of 2016
SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED
-Versus-
LIKPROOF INDIA (P) LTD.
AP No.172 of 2016
SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED
-Versus-
LIKPROOF INDIA (P) LTD.
AP No.177 of 2016
SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED
-Versus-
LIKPROOF INDIA (P) LTD.
2
Appearance:
Mr. Utpal Bose, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Satarup Banerjee, Adv.
Ms. Rituparna Saha, Adv.
...for the petitioner.
Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Adv.
Mr. Arif Ali, Adv.
Mr. Aniruddha Agarwalla, Adv.
Ms. F. Nasim, Adv.
...for the respondent.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : February 22, 2017.
The Court : These eight matters pertain to four of the agreements between the parties herein. In addition, there are two more agreements between them of similar kind.
Though these are petitions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the parties have agreed that they would go to a consolidated reference covering all six agreements presided over by Mr. Surojit Nath Mitra, Sr. Advocate. The parties have also agreed that the consolidated remuneration of the arbitrator should be Rs.5 lakh and that he should endeavour to conclude the reference within five months of being informed of this order.
The respondent maintains that upon the original finance agreements being modified by subsequent agreements, the arbitration clause contained in the original agreements were not incorporated in the subsequent agreements on the basis of which the present claims have been made by the finance company. The finance company asserts, on the other hand, that the modifications 3 were made without prejudice to the original agreements and, as such, the modifications would only cover the commercial terms without the parent agreements or their efficacy, including the arbitration clauses contained therein, being disturbed or overwritten. The parties have agreed that such preliminary issue will also be decided by the arbitrator.
Accordingly, A.P.No.1158 of 2015, A.P.No.1159 of 2015, A.P.No.1160 of 2015, A.P.No.1161 of 2015, A.P.No.166 of 2016, A.P.No.169 of 2016, A.P.No.172 of 2016 and A.P.No.177 of 2016 are disposed of by recording the agreement between the parties as to the choice of the arbitrator and his consolidated remuneration and by referring the parties to such arbitration in respect of all disputes covered by the six original agreements and their modifications.
It goes without saying that the remuneration of the arbitrator will be shared by the two parties in equal measure.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) A/s.