Madras High Court
M/S.Ex-Servicemen'S Airlink vs M/S.Container Corporation Of India ... on 25 September, 2014
Author: Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 25.09.2014 Coram : The Hon'ble Mr.Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Chief Justice O.P.No.9 of 2012 M/s.Ex-Servicemen's Airlink Transport Services (P) Limited, No.62, Yashwant Place, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi. .. Petitioner -vs- 1.M/s.Container Corporation of India Limited, CONCOR Bhavan, C-3 Mathura Road, Opp. Appollo Hospital, New Delhi, Rep. By its Managing Driector. 2.The Managing Director M/s.Container Corporation of India Limited, CONCOR Bhavan. .. Respondents Petition filed under Section 11 (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint an Arbitrator to resolve the disputes that have arisen between the parties to the Agreement dated 09.01.2009. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Jayaprakash For Respondents : Mr.V.G.Suresh Kumar * * * * * O R D E R
An agreement for Security Services at the Container Freight Station of the respondent at Chennai was entered into on 09.01.2009 whereby the petitioner was to perform the obligation of security agency. This agreement, in the eventuality of disputes, contains mode of resolution of disputes by arbitration as per clause 14, which reads as under:
'' In the event of any dispute arising ot of this contract shall be referred to a sole arbitrator to be appointed by the Managing Director of CONCOR and the 'Arbitration proceedings would be governed by Aarbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The fees and expenses towards arbitration proceedings will be shared equally by the parties. The jurisdiction for filing the award into court or any other proceedings under the Arbitration Act shall be that of courts in Chennai City only.
2.It is the common case of the parties that disputes have arisen on their claims and counter-claims. The petitioner invoked the arbitration clause vide a communication dated 30.07.2011, but to no avail. There has, thus, been failure on the part of the designated authority being the Managing Director of the respondent to appoint a sole arbitrator, which, in turn, has given rise to the present petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
3.No counter-affidavit has been filed and thus, it is a case of no return.
4.In view of the aforesaid, disputes inter se the parties are liable to be referred to an Arbitrator to be appointed by this Court.
5.Learned counsel for parties propose and it is agreed that Mr.Justice K.Govindarajan, a retired Judge of this Court, be appointed as a sole Arbitrator to enter upon reference and adjudicate the disputes inter se the parties.
6.Thus, I appoint Mr.Justice K.Govindarajan, a retired Judge of this Court, as the Sole Arbitrator, to enter upon the reference and after issuing notice to the parties and upon hearing them, pass an award as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. The learned Arbitrator is at liberty to fix the remuneration and other incidental expenses, which shall be borne equally by both the parties.
7.Accordingly, the original petition is allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(S.K.K., CJ.) 25.09.2014 sra The Hon'ble Chief Justice (sra) O.P.No.9 of 2012 25.09.2014