Calcutta High Court
Apl Metals Limited vs Mountview Tracom Llp & Ors on 5 February, 2019
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha
ORDER SHEET
GA NO.329 OF 2019
WITH
AP NO.34 OF 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
APL METALS LIMITED
Versus
MOUNTVIEW TRACOM LLP & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
Date : 5th February, 2019
Appearance:
Suddhasatva Banerjee, Mr.Saunak Sengupta, Mr.Gopal
Pahari, Mr.Mandeep Kaur, Advocates for petitioner
Mr.Jishnu Chowdhury, Mr.Chayan Gupta, Mr.A.Agarwalla, Miss farnaz
Nasim,Advocates for respondents
The Court:-This arbitration petition and general application are both for inviting interference of Court under section 14 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Mr.Banerjee, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner who is respondent in the arbitration proceeding. He submits, the Arbitrator had framed as an issue:-
"(3) Whether the title of the respondent no.1 in respect of the subject property is clear and marketable and unhindered by the provisions of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act and the Urban Land Ceiling Act?"
He demonstrates from disclosure at page 153 of the petition that the Arbitrator had given an opinion dated 29th March, 2012, certifying 2 that the land belonging to petitioner is not affected by any law under section 6(3) of West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. Mr. Chowdhury, learned advocate appearing on behalf of claimant respondent initially took point of maintainability by relying on judgment of Supreme Court in HRD Corporation Vs. GAIL (India) Limited reported in (2018) 12 SCC 471, paragraph 12 substantiated by reference to ruling of the Arbitrator on challenge to his eligibility to act as such but thereafter concedes to an order of termination of mandate being made under section 14.
Parties drew attention to arbitration clause (25) in agreement dated 19th March, 2013 between themselves. They had agreed on there being sole named Arbitrator whose mandate now will stand terminated, also on their agreement. Parties have further agreed that their substitute Arbitrator will be Hon'ble retired Chief Justice Jyotirmay Bhattacharya and that there should be extension of time till 30th April, 2019 for substitute Arbitrator to conclude the proceeding on allowing reasonable time to petitioner for putting in evidence on affidavit, thereafter examination of the witness, hearing of arguments and publication of Award. Mr. Chowdhury wants a direction made for petitioner to file evidence on affidavit by seven days to which Mr. Banerjee submits, copy of evidence on affidavit to be used will be made over to claimant by 18th February, 2019. 3
Petitioner has applied and respondent has agreed to termination of mandate of Arbitrator. As such, mandate of Arbitrator stands terminated as per provisions in sub-section (3) section 14. Parties have also agreed, as per provisions in sub-section (2) of section 15, for appointment of substitute Arbitrator. Hon'ble retired Chief Justice Jyotirmay Bhattacharya is to act as substitute Arbitrator on and from the date of communication of this order made by either party. Petitioner will apply to substitute Arbitrator for time to file evidence on affidavit of its witness keeping in mind record of submission above, for direction being made by Arbitral Tribunal. Terms of appointment will be same as of outgoing Arbitrator.
Joint submission at the Bar is that remuneration and arbitration proceedings costs outstanding till 17th sitting, held by out-going Arbitrator, shall be paid forthwith in equal share. Parties are granted liberty to serve copy of this order on outgoing Arbitrator who is requested to raise bills for outstanding remuneration and arbitration proceeding costs. Such bills must be paid by the parties according to their share within seven days of receipt of the bills. Arbitration petition and application are both disposed of.
(ARINDAM SINHA, J.) sb.