Court considered an application regarding the constitution of an arbitral tribunal under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court granted time to produce proof of service and ordered issue of notice.
Supplementary affidavit regarding proof of service of notice dated 24.11.2023 admitted; notice issued; steps within a week.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 4
Case :- CIVIL MISC. ARBITRATION APPLICATION No. - 23 of 2024
Applicant :- Amit Engineers Opposite Party :- Modern Coach Factory Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Misra
Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
Heard Ms.Meenakshi Jyoti, Advocate appearing through Video Conferencing.
This court had passed the following order on 18.03.2024:-
"Ms. Meenakshi Jyoti, Advocate appearing through video conferencing alongwith Shri Shailendra Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the applicant, who is present in person before this Court submits that earlier the applicant had filed a petition for appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 bearing Arbitration Application No.71 of 2023; Amit Engineers Vs. Modern Coach Factory. However the same was dismissed as withdrawn on a wrong contention of learned counsel for the respondent that three Arbitrator panel is to be appointed, however the same was mistakenly withdrawn.
She further submits that the applicant had entered into a contract with the respondent and in pursuance thereof the purchase order was issued on 22.03.2022 and dispute has arisen. As per terms and conditions of the contract, the MCF instructions with tender revision 20 was annexed with the same and part of the contract. As per paragraph 1.6 of the general instructions in the MCF conditions, in case of contradiction between IRS conditions of contract and general conditions, the general conditions will prevail. As per general conditions of contract, the sole Arbitrator is to be appointed in case of dispute and there is no distinction that three member Arbitrator panel would be appointed in the case of claim over and above 50,000,00/-, therefore the submission is that in view of contradiction in IRS conditions of contract and general conditions of MCF in regard to appointment of arbitrator tribunal in regard to claim over and above Rs.50,000,00/-, the general conditions will prevail.
She further submits that after getting the petition dismissed from this Court, the applicants had requested for constitution of arbitral tribunal by means of the letter dated 24.11.2023 to the respondents. However no reply has been given. The proof of sending and service of the letter dated 24.11.2023 has not been annexed, therefore, learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted three days' time to bring the same on record.
As prayed, list on 28.03.2024."
In deference to the aforesaid order supplementary affidavit has been filed disclosing therein that the service has been made through e-mode.
Matter requires consideration.
Issue notice.
Steps to be taken within a week.
List on the date fixed in the notice.
............................................ .(Rajnish Kumar,J.) Order Date :- 28.3.2024 Banswar
Digitally signed by :- RAM NARESH BANSWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to be granted time to produce proof of service of a letter seeking constitution of arbitral tribunal.
Whether the dismissal of an earlier application for appointment of arbitrator affects the current application.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Amit Engineers
Rajnish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
9 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
