Dismissed

Ghazala Khatoon v. Up State Road Transport Corporation through Its Managing Director

Allahabad HC1 Feb 2024/44/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court appointed Sri Vijay Kumar Srivastava as an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in three connected applications. After initial non-compliance with Section 12(1) regarding consent, the court directed a fresh consent, which was subsequently obtained, leading to the appointment.

What did the court decide?

Sri Vijay Kumar Srivastava, Advocate, is appointed as Arbitrator. The applications are disposed of.

Ghazala Khatoon Vs Up State Road Transport Corporation through… — Arbitration | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:9423

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- CIVIL MISC. ARBITRATION APPLICATION No. - 44 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Ghazala Khatoon Opposite Party :- Up State Road Transport Corporation Through Its Managing Director Counsel for Applicant :- Rohit Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ratnesh Chandra

¶5

AND

¶6

Case :- CIVIL MISC. ARBITRATION APPLICATION No. - 45 of 2022

¶7

Applicant :- Imran Husain Siddiqui Opposite Party :- Up State Road Transport Corporation Through Its Managing Director Counsel for Applicant :- Rohit Tripathi,Syed Zulfiqar Husain Naqvi

¶8

AND

¶9

Case :- CIVIL MISC. ARBITRATION APPLICATION No. - 46 of 2022

¶10

Applicant :- Imran Husain Siddiqui Opposite Party :- Up State Road Transport Corporation Through Its Managing Director Counsel for Applicant :- Rohit Tripathi,Shishir Srivastava

¶11

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶12

Heard, Shri Syed Julfiqar Husain Naqvi, Advocate holding brief of Shri Rohit Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Himanshu Singh, Advocate holding brief of Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the opposite party.

¶13

This is an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of Arbitrator.

¶14

This Court by means of the order dated 04.08.2023 had proposed the name of Sri Vijay Kumar Srivastava, Advocate, AOR No. B/V 0122, Chamber No. 311, R/o 122, Dolphin Enclave Near Techno College, Ayodhya Road, Lucknow as proposed Arbitrator in all the three matters to decide the dispute in the matter with the following order:-

¶15

"Heard Sri Rohit Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ratnesh Chandra, Advocate along with Ms. Sukanya Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶16

These are batch of three petitions preferred under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶17

The core of the controversy is that the petitioner and the respondent entered into

¶18

an agreement in terms whereof the vehicles of the petitioner were attached with the respondent-corporation. An agreement entered into between the parties was acted upon and in furtherance thereof attachment orders were also issued on 22nd July, 2020.

¶19

However, the agreement between the parties under Clause 34 contained an arbitration clause where of it was provided that in case of dispute between the parties, the matter shall be referred to the sole Arbitrator to be appointed by the Managing Director of the Corporation.

¶20

Since the disputes have occurred post 2015, accordingly, as per the amended provisions of the Act of 1996, specifically Section 12 (5) read with Section sixth and seventh schedule, the Managing Director of the Corporation was illegible to appoint an Arbitrator.

¶21

Taking caution of the aforesaid, the petitioner by means of his notice dated 05.04.2022 called upon the respondents who was the signatory to the contract to cooperate in appointment of sole Arbitrator. The said notice despite service was not responded, accordingly, the petitioner has approached this Court in terms of Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute the fact regarding the existence of the agreement as well as the arbitration clause.

¶22

In light of the aforesaid, all the disputes have to be referred for arbitration.

¶23

This Court finds that it is a fit case for the appointment of an Arbitrator.

¶24

The learned counsel for both the parties have also suggested that considering the quantum which may be involved in the three petitions together may not be very high, accordingly, both the parties consent that in case if Sri Vijay Kumar Srivastava, a senior member of the Bar is appointed as an Arbitrator in all the three connected matters, they would have no cause of any anxiety.

¶25

Considering the aforesaid suggestion and accepting the same, the Court proposes the name of Sri Vijay Kumar Srivastava, Advocate, AOR No. B/V 0122, Chamber No. 311, R/o 122, Dolphin Enclave Near Techno College, Ayodhya Road, Lucknow.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner shall submit a complete set of the pleadings of all the three petitions within a week which shall be forwarded to the proposed Arbitrator to seek his consent in terms of Section 12 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶27

List this matter on 30th August, 2023. "

¶28

The proposed arbitrator had sent his consent, however the same was not in terms of Section 12(1) of Arbitration of Conciliation Act- 1996. Therefore by means of order dated 11.01.2024 a fresh consent was called. The order dated 11.01.2024 is reproduced here-in-below:-

¶29

"As per office report, the consent letter from the proposed Arbitrator Shri Vijay Kumar Srivastava, Advocate has been received, however the same is not in terms of Section 12(1) of Arbitration of Conciliation Act- 1996, therefore let fresh consent be sought in terms of the aforesaid section before the next date.

¶30

List on 01.02.2024. "

¶31

In pursuance of the aforesaid order Sri Vijay Kumar Srivastava, Advocate, AOR No. B/V 0122, Chamber No. 311, R/o 122, Dolphin Enclave Near Techno College,

¶32

Ayodhya Road, Lucknow has sent his consent through letter dated 24.01.2024 in accordance with law.

¶33

In view of above Sri Vijay Kumar Srivastava, Advocate, AOR No. B/V 0122, Chamber No. 311, R/o 122, Dolphin Enclave Near Techno College, Ayodhya Road, Lucknow is hereby appointed as an Arbitrator to decide the dispute between the parties herein.

¶34

The application is, accordingly, disposed of .

¶35

Let a copy of this order be communicated forthwith to Sri Vijay Kumar Srivastava, Advocate, AOR No. B/V 0122, Chamber No. 311, R/o 122, Dolphin Enclave Near Techno College, Ayodhya Road, Lucknow.

¶36

...................................... .(Rajnish Kumar,J.) Order Date :- 1.2.2024 Banswar

¶37

Digitally signed by :- RAM NARESH BANSWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ghazala Khatoon v. Up State Road Transport Corporation through Its Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghazala Khatoon v. Up State Road Transport Corporation through Its Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Bajpai Vs National Insurance Company Kheri and Others

Anil Kumar and Co. Thru. Authorized Representative vs U.P. Rajkiye Nirman Nigam Thru. M.D.

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Throu Its R.M. Vs Sumit Kumar and Ors.

Smt. Vimla Devi Vs Indrabhan and Ors.

Chhaya Development Services Pvt. Ltd., through its Authorized Signatory, Shri Anil Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. through Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, and Another

Suraiya Begum and 13 Others Vs Kurkut