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

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:9384

Court No. - 4

Case :- CIVIL MISC. ARBITRATION APPLICATION No. - 57 of 2023

Applicant :- Chhaya Development Services Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Authorized Signatory, Shri Anil Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.,Naresh Chandra Mehrotra

¶5

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard, Shri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Shri N.C.Mehrotra, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

¶7

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

¶8

This Court by means of the order dated 22.11.2023 had proposed the name of Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Ranjana Pandya, R/o Flat No.L-304, Alkhnanda Apartment, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Mobile Nos.8004929677 and 9793932222, a Retd. Judge of this Court as Arbitrator to decide the dispute in the matter with the following order:-

¶9

"Heard Shri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri N. C. Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 as well as Shri Arun Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1.

¶10

The instant petition has been preferred under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an independent sole Arbitrator.

¶11

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner and the respondent no.2 entered into an agreement dated 15.06.2018 for purposes of construction of a Panchayati Raj Building. It is stated that the said agreement in clause 37 contained an arbitration clause in pursuance whereof on account of any dispute between the contractor and the respondent no.2, the matter can be referred for arbitration to the Managing Director of the respondent no.2 whose decision will be final. It is urged that post the Amendment in the Act 1996 in the year 2015, it is no more open for the respondent to either arbitrate or appoint an Arbitrator. It is also submitted that certain disputes have occurred between the parties relating to payments which is to be recovered from the respondent no.2.

¶12

It is also pointed out that the petitioner invoked the arbitration by means of its notice dated 09.06.2023. However, despite the notice having been served on the respondent, no fruitful effort could be made for appointment

¶13

of the sole Arbitrator, hence this petition.

¶14

Shri N. C. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that apparently the disputes which are sought to be raised by the petitioner are artificial in nature; inasmuch as in the counter-affidavit the respondent has given a complete chart indicating the payments made to the petitioner and some of them were also post the notice dated 09.06.2023. It is the petitioner who is at fault and as such the petitioner has raised the dispute which has no substance.

¶15

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from the perusal of the material on record what this Court finds is that the agreement dated 15.06.2018, the existence of the arbitration clause in clause 37 of the agreement and the notice dated 09.06.2023 invoking the arbitration clause is not disputed by the respondents. Any contentious issue between the parties is to be raised and to be adjudicated by the Arbitrator, accordingly this Court finds that it is a fit case for appointment of a sole Arbitrator, accordingly the Court proposes the name of Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Ranjana Pandya, R/o Flat No.L-304, Alkhnanda Apartment, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Mobile Nos.8004929677 and 9793932222, a Retd. Judge of this Court, to act as an Arbitrator.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner shall submit the entire paper book with the office of this Court within a week from today which shall be forwarded to the proposed Arbitrator for seeking the consent of the proposed arbitrator in terms of Section 12(1) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶17

List this matter on 22nd of December, 2023 for further orders. "

¶18

In pursuance of the aforesaid order the proposed Arbitrator has sent her consent through letter dated 02.12.2023 in accordance with law.

¶19

In view of above Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Ranjana Pandya, R/o Flat No.L-304, Alkhnanda Apartment, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Mobile Nos.8004929677 and 9793932222, a Retd. Judge of this Court is hereby appointed as an Arbitrator to decide the dispute between the parties herein.

¶20

The application is, accordingly, disposed of .

¶21

Let a copy of this order be communicated forthwith to Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Ranjana Pandya, R/o Flat No.L-304, Alkhnanda Apartment, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Mobile Nos.8004929677 and 9793932222.

¶22

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

¶23

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

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.

Ghazala Khatoon Vs Up State Road Transport Corporation through Its Managing Director

Suraiya Begum and 13 Others Vs Kurkut