Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
M/S Simpark Infracture Pvt Ltd vs Jaipur Municipal Corporation on 15 September, 2021
Author: Indrajit Mahanty
Bench: Chief Justice
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 23/2020
M/s Simpark Infracture Pvt Ltd, (A 100 Subsidiary Of M/s
Simplex Project Ltd.) A Company Incorporated Under The
Provisions Of The Companes Act, 1956, Having Its Registered
Office At 12/1, B. Nellie Sen Gupta Sarani, Kolkata Through Its
Authorized Signatory Sudarshan Mundhra, S/o Shri B.k.
Mundhra.
----Petitioner
Versus
Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya
Bhawan, Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its Chief Executive
Officer.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.D. Singh through VC Mr. P.K. Singh For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE Order 15/09/2021
1. Heard learned counsels for the respective parties.
2. This is an application filed by the petitioner who is the claimant in the arbitration proceedings before the Arbitrator appointed by this Court.
3. This application has come to be filed essentially seeking substitution by terminating the mandate of the Hon'ble Arbitrator.
Attention of the Court was drawn to order dated 03.04.2019 under Annexure-P/7 passed by Hon'ble Arbitrator whereby he has granted 15 days time to the petitioner-claimant to deposit his part of fees and miscellaneous expenses.
(Downloaded on 18/09/2021 at 09:24:32 PM)
(2 of 3) [CMAP-23/2020]
4. Thereafter, it appears that order was not complied with and vide order dated 21.04.2019 under Annexure-P/8, the Hon'ble Arbitrator granted the petitioner last opportunity to deposit his share of fees, failing which an order shall be passed in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 38 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
5. It is stated by the counsel that no such order under sub- section (2) of Section 38 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been passed till date. Thereafter, it appears that letter was addressed by the counsel for the petitioner-claimant to the Hon'ble Arbitrator alleging that adequate time had not been granted to the petitioner to deposit the amount and oral observations were made by the Arbitrator to the effect that claimant probably does not have any case on merits. Based on such assertion, this application has come to be filed apprehending that there would not be fair adjudication of the matter and he has doubts as to the independence and impartiality of Hon'ble Arbitrator.
6. After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. S.D. Singh, this Court is of the considered view that no case has been made out for exercise of the authority for removal of Arbitrator on the ground as noted hereinabove. Keeping in view the fact that although, time has been granted on several occasions to the petitioner to deposit his part of the fees and expenses, the same has not been deposited and further nearly two years have lapsed since then and no such fee has yet been deposited. (Downloaded on 18/09/2021 at 09:24:32 PM)
(3 of 3) [CMAP-23/2020]
7. Accordingly, this Court finds no justifiable grounds to interfere with the arbitral proceedings and the Hon'ble Arbitrator is free to proceed with the matter strictly in accordance with law.
8. In view of the above, the Miscellaneous Application stands dismissed.
(INDRAJIT MAHANTY),CJ NAVAL KISHOR /Harshit/13 (Downloaded on 18/09/2021 at 09:24:32 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)