Disposed

Crest Digitel Pvt. Ltd. Thru Authorized Signatory Shashi Kant Chaubey v. Uttar Pradesh Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.

Allahabad HC6 Nov 2024/70/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court appointed a former judge as a sole arbitrator for a dispute arising from an agreement between the applicant and opposite party, despite the claim exceeding the standard limit for a sole arbitrator, based on the mutual consent of parties.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahendra Dayal as an Arbitrator.

Crest Digitel Pvt. Ltd. Thru Authorized Signatory Shashi Kant… — Arbitration | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:73337

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- CIVIL MISC. ARBITRATION APPLICATION No. - 70 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Crest Digitel Pvt. Ltd. Thru Authorized Signatory Shashi Kant Chaubey

¶5

Opposite Party :- Uttar Pradesh Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. Counsel for Applicant :- Ritwick Rai,Ankit Kumar Pandey,Ashutosh Verma,Aviral Raj Singh,Dhruv Kumar Singh,Palash Banerjee,Vaibhav Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- Kumar Ayush

¶6

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶7

Heard.

¶8

This Court had passed the following order on 10.09.2024:-

¶9

" 1. Heard Shri Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ritwick Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Kumar Ayush, learned counsel for the opposite party.

¶10

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the parties had entered into an agreement dated 11.12.2018. Some dispute arose, therefore, in terms of Clause 21.1 of the agreement, the applicant gave a notice dated 10.07.2024 for appointment of arbitrator, proposing the name. The same was replied by means of the letter dated 15.08.2024 but no arbitrator was appointed, therefore, the applicant gave a notice dated 17.08.2024 for initiating legal proceeding for appointment of arbitrator, therefore, the respondents have not appointed arbitrator within the time provided. In response thereof, the respondent asked to choose from a panel of arbitrators of department and thereafter the respondent would appoint but it could not have been done as per law, therefore, an arbitrator may be appointed by this Court for adjudication of dispute as the arbitration clause has become unworkable due to non compliance by the respondent.

¶11

3. Learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute that there is a dispute between the parties, which can be adjudicated through arbitration in terms of the agreement, therefore, the respondent had informed to the applicant a panel of five arbitrators by means of the letter dated 20.08.2024 to choose one of them as the applicant's arbitrator and thereafter the respondent would appoint his arbitrator, but no arbitrator has been chosen from the said list, therefore, the respondent has not appointed. He further submits that though as per the arbitration clause the sole arbitrator can be appointed for claims up to Rs.50/- Lacs and two

¶12

arbitrators, one by each party, who will appoint the third arbitrator for the claims over and above Rs.50/- Lacs but in the facts and circumstances of the case and as stated by learned counsel for the appellant and looking to the implications and financial aspects involved in the matter, this Court may appoint a sole arbitrator even though the claim is over and above Rs.50/- Lacs for which he accords his consent on the instructions from the respondent.

¶13

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though he has prayed for appointment of arbitrator on behalf of the respondent in this application as they have failed to appoint the arbitrator in terms of the agreement on the notice given by the applicant and the claim is over and above Rs.50/- Lacs but since the respondent has also given consent for appointment of the sole arbitrator, the applicant also accords his consent for appointment of a sole arbitrator on the instruction of the applicant in the matter in this application to adjudicate the claim which will be also cost effective.

¶14

5. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and consent of learned counsel for the parties, since the parties have arrived at an agreement for appointment of a sole arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute in this matter even though the claim is more than Rs. 50/- Lacs as pointed out, this Court is of the view that the sole arbitrator can be appointed as the parties have agreed to submit their all disputes arsing out of the agreement between the parties to a sole arbitrator.

¶15

6. In view of above, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this Court proposes to appoint Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahendra Dayal (Former Judge of this Court) R/o 40, Swapna Lok Colony, Kamta, Chinhat, Faizabad Road, Lucknow (U.P.), Mobile No. 8004928571, as an Arbitrator to settle the dispute between the parties.

¶16

7. Let a copy of the pleadings on record alongwith the relevant provisions of the amending Act 2015 be sent to Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahendra Dayal (Former Judge of this Court) R/o 40, Swapna Lok Colony, Kamta, Chinhat, Faizabad Road, Lucknow (U.P.), Mobile No. 8004928571, for eliciting his disclosure in terms of Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1) of the Act, 1996 and Schedule VI and VII as amended by Act 2015, appended thereto, as also his consent for appointment as an Arbitrator for resolving the dispute.

¶17

8. Learned counsel for the applicant shall supply an additional copy of the application to the office for the said purpose within a week.

¶18

9. List immediately after receipt of reply/consent."

¶19

The proposed arbitrator has sent his consent and disclosures through letter dated 24.10.2024 in accordance with law.

¶20

In view of above, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahendra Dayal

¶21

(Former Judge of this Court) R/o 40, Swapna Lok Colony, Kamta, Chinhat, Faizabad Road, Lucknow (U.P.), Mobile No. 8004928571 is appointed as an Arbitrator to arbitrate with regard to the dispute between the parties herein.

¶22

The application is disposed of accordingly.

¶23

Office is directed to communicate a copy of this order to Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahendra Dayal (Former Judge of this Court), forthwith.

¶24

...................................................................(Rajnish Kumar, J.)

¶25

Order Date :- 6.11.2024 Haseen U.

¶26

Digitally signed by :- HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Crest Digitel Pvt. Ltd. Thru Authorized Signatory Shashi Kant Chaubey v. Uttar Pradesh Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Crest Digitel Pvt. Ltd. Thru Authorized Signatory Shashi Kant Chaubey v. Uttar Pradesh Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S K K Spun India Ltd. vs State of U. P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy., Irrigation and Water Resources and Anr.

Chandra Shekhar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Home and Others

Jashoda Beva Thakur vs Umesh Chand Upadhyay Competent Authority Urban Land Ciling Regulation Lko.

Sarju Dei Vs Union of India Thru. General Manager, Northern Railway Baroda House, New Delhi

Jay Singh Vs Prabhan Singh and Another

Smt. Jaimala vs Radhey Shyam and Others