Bombay High Court
Enrika Traders And Services Pvt. Ltd. ... vs Emta Coal Ltd. Kolkata on 20 March, 2018
Author: Z.A. Haq
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 mca983.17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO.983/2017
Enrika Traders and Services Private Limited,
a company incorporated under the Companies
Act, 1956 having its registered office at 4th floor,
Sadhana House, 570, P.B.Marg, Worli,
Mumbai 400 018. ..Applicant.
..Vs..
EMTA Coal Limited, a company incorporated
under the provisions of the Companies Act, 56
having its registered office at 5B, Nandlal Basu
Sarani, Kolkata 700 001. ..Non-applicant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Shri S.M. Puranik, Advocate for the applicant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATE : 20.3.2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. None appears for the non-applicant, though served. The learned Advocate for the applicant pointed out pursis Stamp No.3713/2018 alongwith which copy of notice dated 15th September, 2017 is placed on record. By this notice, the applicant has informed the non-applicant about the pendency of this application before this Court.
2. Heard Shri S.M. Puranik, Advocate for the applicant.
3. Rule returnable on 6th April, 2018.
4. The learned Advocate for the applicant has pointed out Clause 12.2 ::: Uploaded on - 02/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2018 23:20:49 ::: 2 mca983.17 of the agreement between the applicant and the non-applicant executed on 5 th October, 2013 which provides that any dispute or difference or claim out of or in relation to the contract has to be resolved by an Arbitral Tribunal. The learned Advocate has pointed out notice issued on behalf of the applicant to the non-applicant on 2nd June, 2017 informing the non-applicant that Shri R.G. Deshpande, former Judge of this Court was proposed to be the Arbitrator on behalf of the applicant, and the non-applicant was called upon to appoint an Arbitrator on its behalf. It is submitted that the non-applicant has neither given any reply to the notice nor has taken any steps in the matter.
5. After examining the facts of the case, prima facie, I find that the dispute raised by the applicant is required to be resolved by the Arbitrator, the claim of the applicant cannot be said to be stale claim and the seat of arbitration would be at Nagpur as per Clause 12.2 of the agreement.
In view of the above, the following order is passed:
(i) Shri D.S. Zoting, former Judge of this Court is proposed to be the Arbitrator.
(ii) The learned Registrar (J.) to seek disclosure from the proposed Arbitrator, as required by Section 11(8) and Section 12(5) read with 7 th Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
JUDGE Tambaskar.
::: Uploaded on - 02/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2018 23:20:49 :::