Calcutta High Court
M/S. Eden Realty Ventures Pvt. Ltd vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 27 March, 2014
Author: Sanjib Banerjee
Bench: Sanjib Banerjee
AP No.476 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
M/S. EDEN REALTY VENTURES PVT. LTD.
-Versus-
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
Appearance:
Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Adv.
Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Adv.
Mr. S.C. Srivastava, Adv.
...for the petitioner.
Mr. Avijit Gangopadhyay, Adv.
...for the respondent.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : March 27, 2014.
The Court : There is no dispute between the parties as to the existence of the arbitration agreement. However, there is an issue raised by the respondent as to the arbitrability of the disputes under the arbitration agreement.
An arbitrator had been appointed upon a request being carried to the Chief Justice or his designate. In the curious practice that was followed in this Court at the relevant point of time, the arbitration Judge was entrusted only with the lesser burden of adjudicating the legal issues and the larger burden of nominating the arbitrator was reserved unto the Chief Justice or some other senior and, obviously, wiser judge.2
In accordance with such practice, the order dated February 18, 2010 found that the existence of the arbitration agreement could not be doubted and referred the disputes to arbitration with liberty to the respondents to urge whatever grounds were available to the respondent as to the arbitrability of the disputes.
The arbitrator appointed in A.P.No.469 of 2009 has expired. There is now a need to appoint a fresh arbitrator. The present petition under Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot be entertained as the petitioner herein has not resorted to the mechanism agreed to by the parties for securing the composition of the arbitral tribunal. The petitioner has fairly accepted that the law is clear that upon the termination of the mandate of the arbitrator, the process for appointing a new arbitrator would be as envisaged in the arbitration agreement and the right to carry a request under Section 11 of the Act would arise only upon the parties failing to agree on the procedure for appointment or the recognised procedure not being adhered to.
A.P.No.476 of 2014 is disposed of by leaving the parties free to appoint the arbitrator in accordance with the procedure recognised by the arbitration agreement, or else, take steps in accordance with law. The termination of the mandate of the arbitrator upon his death is recorded.
There will be no order as to costs.
Certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be urgently supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) A/s.