Bombay High Court
Mastek Ltd. Through Tushar Hule vs Social Justice And Special Assistance ... on 11 June, 2019
Author: G.S.Kulkarni
Bench: G.S. Kulkarni
pvr 1 6arbapl71-19.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ARBITRATION APPLICATION (LODG) NO.71 OF 2019
Mastek Ltd. ...Applicant
Versus
1.Social Justice & Special Assistance Department. ...Respondents
---
Ms.Saloni M.Ghule, for the Applicant.
Mr.Kedar Dighe, AGP for the State.
-----
CORAM : G.S. KULKARNI, J.
DATE : 11 June 2019
---
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This is an application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act,1996 (for short 'the Act') whereby the applicant has
prayed for appointment of an arbitral tribunal for adjudicating the
disputes which have arisen between the parties under the agreements
dated 10 May 2013 and 23 February 2017 being the 'Service Agreements'.
3. On 22 April 2019 this Court has passed the following order:-
Heard learned Counsel for the parties on this application for
appointment of an arbitral tribunal filed under Section 11 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Three names are suggested
::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 04:45:02 :::
pvr 2 6arbapl71-19.doc
on behalf of the respondent who are stated to be experts in
software technology.
2. Disputes and differences have arisen between the parties
under the agreements dated 10 May 2013 and 23 February 2017
which was for developing and enhancement of software and
maintaining services. Considering the nature of agreements and
the disputes, it would be appropriate that a sole arbitrator who is
expert in software technology is appointed.
3. It would be appropriate that in the meantime, learned
Prothonotary & Senior Master of this Court would take steps to get
an appropriate name of the expert in software technology from IIT,
Mumbai who can be appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate the
disputes and differences between the parties in regard to the
agreements in question.
4. Accordingly, for the above reasons, stand over to 30 April
2019 (HOB). Liberty to mention."
4. In pursuance of the said order, the learned Prothonotary and Senior
Master of this Court has placed on record a report dated 2 May 2019
stating that the Dean of IIT, Bombay was approached to forward a name
of an expert in the field of Computer Science who can be nominated as an
arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The Dean of IIT
has informed that Professor Ashutosh Gupta of Department of Computer
Science and Engineering can be engaged for this assignment. However,
Prof. Ashutosh Gupta informed that though he is an expert in software
technology, however, he has no experience of working as an Arbitrator.
Apart from Professor Ashutosh Gupta, there was no other person who was
nominated by IIT for this assignment. On this background the matter is
::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 04:45:02 :::
pvr 3 6arbapl71-19.doc
before the Court today.
5. Learned Counsel for the applicant has placed on record a letter
addressed to the learned Government Pleader dated 31 May 2019 where
the applicant has given the details of Dr.Deepak B.Phatak, who was
awarded a Padma Shri in the field of Science and Technology in the year
2013 and who has a qualification of Ph.D. from IIT, Mumbai and who is a
senior person in the field, having expertise in the computer technology.
Dr.Phatak is also an advisor to the public sector undertakings/
Corporations, banks and Government Departments. It is submitted on
behalf of the applicant that in this peculiar situation the Court may
consider appointing Dr.Phatak as a Sole Arbitrator to arbitrate the
disputes between the parties. Learned AGP has also received instructions
and by a letter dated 12 April 2019 issued to the learned Advocate for the
applicant on behalf of the respondent, names of three persons who are
stated to have expertise in the field, are informed.
6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having
perused the record, it would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances
of the case, that Dr.Deepak B. Phatak be appointed as a sole Arbitrator to
::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 04:45:02 :::
pvr 4 6arbapl71-19.doc
adjudicate the disputes and differences between the parties. Hence the
following order:-
ORDER
(i) Dr.Deepak B. Phatak, (IIT-Mumbai) is appointed as a prospective sole Arbitrator to arbitrate the disputes and difference between the parties under the agreements dated 10 May 2013 and 23 February 2017.
(ii) The prospective sole arbitrator, fifteen days before entering the arbitration reference, shall forward a statement of disclosure as per the requirement of Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996, to the Prothonotary & Senior Master of this Court, to be placed on record of this application with a copy to be forwarded to both the parties;
(iii) The fees payable to the arbitral tribunal shall be governed in accordance with the fees prescribed under the Bombay High Court (Fees Payable to Arbitrators) Rules,2018.
(iv) At the first instance, the parties shall appear before the prospective arbitrator within 10 days from today on a date which may be mutually fixed by the prospective sole arbitrator;
(v) All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open. ::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 04:45:02 :::
pvr 5 6arbapl71-19.doc (vi) Learned Arbitrator shall endeavour to adjudicate the dispute
as expeditiously as possible and shall publish an award within the time limit as specified under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996.
(vii) The application is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
(G.S.Kulkarni, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2019 04:45:02 :::