Calcutta High Court
Shree Balasaria Construction Pvt. Ltd vs Vodafone Essar East Ltd on 26 April, 2011
Author: I. P. Mukerji
Bench: I. P. Mukerji
AP No. 347 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
SHREE BALASARIA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.
Versus
VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LTD.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE I. P. MUKERJI
Date : 26th April, 2011.
MR.S.N.MITRA,SR.ADVOCATE, MR.K.GUPTA,
MR.R.DHARA,ADVOCATES FOR PETITIONER
MR.JISNU SAHA,MR.D.BHATTACHARYYA,ADVOCATES
FOR RESPONDENT
The Court : Mr.Saha places the arbitration clause and says that it is invalid. The reason is that according to it the dispute is to be referred to a third arbitrator in case of a difference of opinion between the two appointed arbitrators. Reference to a third arbitrator in the event of a difference between the two appointed arbitrators is not contemplated in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. According to him under the said Act, a third arbitrator being the presiding arbitrator is appointed by the two appointed arbitrators, irrespective of any difference between them. Therefore, the above clause is not a valid arbitration clause. Such point of maintainability is kept open. At this stage let affidavits be filed.
2
Affidavit-in-opposition be filed by 10th May, 2011. List this application on 17th May, 2011. Affidavit in reply may be filed in the meantime.
The interim order dated 30th March, 2011 will continue till disposal of this application.
All parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of this order upon the usual undertakings.
(I. P. MUKERJI, J.) Sb.A.R(C.R.)