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

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:82569

Court No. - 4

Case :- CIVIL MISC. ARBITRATION APPLICATION No. - 49 of 2024

Applicant :- M/S K K Spun India Ltd. Opposite Party :- State Of U. P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy., Irrigation And Water Resources And Anr.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Paavan Awasthi,Gaurav Mehrotra,Prashast Puri Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶7

Heard.

¶8

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

¶9

This Court had passed the following order on 10.09.2024 and proposed the name of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Kumar (Former Judge of this Court), as proposed Arbitrator:-

¶10

"1. Heard Shri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Hari Govind Upadhayay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This Court had passed the following order on 29.07.2024:"Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Standing counsel. The instant petition has been preferred under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking appointment of sole arbitrator. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant was granted the work for construction of intercepting trunk drain on both banks (from Hardoi to Sitapur Bypass to Gomti Weir) for channelisation of Gomti river in Lucknow.

¶11

The said agreement inter alia contained the dispute resolution mechanism in Clause 14. As per the said clause in the first instance the applicant was required to refer the dispute to the Engineer-in -chief and upon receipt of the such dispute the Chief Engineer was required to take a call on the same within 30 days, in case, if the party was aggrieved with the decision he had the option of invoking the arbitration clause, and as per Clause 14.020 the disputes were to be adjudicated by a sole arbitrator.

¶12

Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the dispute had arisen between the parties, hence by means of letter dated 17.11.2019 the petitioner had raised the matter for consideration, however, the same did not find any favour. Subsequently the petitioner further raised the matter before the Chief Engineer by means of the detailed letter dated 25.08.2021, despite the fact that the same was received by the respondent yet again he did not take any remedial measures.

¶13

The claims of the petitioner remained pending with the respondent and the respondent in one of the letters merely indicated that since the issue-in-question is being investigated by CBI hence respondent was unable to take any action to the claims of the petitioner. Be that as it may, the petitioner finally by means of his letter dated 14.12.2022 invoked the arbitration clause and suggested the name of three persons, however, this letter despite service remained unanswered and as such the appointment procedure agreed between the parties failed. Matter requires consideration. Issue notice to the respondents. Steps be taken within one week. List on 29.07.2024."

¶14

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions submits that though a C.B.I. inquiry in the matter is going on but it is not in dispute that there is dispute between the parties, which can be adjudicated through arbitration in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties, therefore, out of three names proposed by the applicant as an arbitrator, the respondents have consented for one of the persons and he has no objection, in case, he is appointed.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the proposal of the names by the

¶16

applicant was not accepted within 30 days as provided under the Act, therefore, an independent arbitrator may be appointed by this Court to which there is no objection by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

¶17

In view of above, this Court proposes to appoint the name of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Kumar (Former Judge of this Court), R/o 1101/T-2, Eldeco Eternia, (near Police Station Madiyanva) Sitapur Road, Lucknow, U.P., Mobile No. 9140176517, as an Arbitrator to settle the dispute between the parties.

¶18

Let a copy of the pleadings on record alongwith the relevant provisions of the amending Act 2015 be sent to Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Kumar (Former Judge of this Court), R/o 1101/T-2, Eldeco Eternia, (near Police Station Madiyanva) Sitapur Road, Lucknow, U.P., Mobile No. 9140176517, 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.

¶19

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

¶20

List immediately after receipt of reply/consent. "

¶21

The proposed Arbitrator has sent his consent and disclosures through letters dated 04.10.2024, 23.10.2024 and 11.11.2024 in accordance with law.

¶22

In view of above Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Kumar (Former Judge of this Court), R/o 1101/T-2, Eldeco Eternia, (near Police Station Madiyanva) Sitapur Road, Lucknow, U.P., Mobile No. 9140176517, a Retd. Judge of this Court is hereby appointed as an Arbitrator to decide the dispute between the parties herein.

¶23

The application is, accordingly, disposed of .

¶24

Let a copy of this order be communicated forthwith to Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Kumar (Former Judge of this Court), R/o 1101/T-2, Eldeco Eternia, (near Police Station Madiyanva) Sitapur Road, Lucknow, U.P., Mobile No. 9140176517.

¶25

............................................. .(Rajnish Kumar,J.) Order Date :- 10.12.2024 Banswar

¶26

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rakesh S/O Ram Khelawan Vs Smt. Ramlali W/O Late Rampal and Ors.

Neetu Chauhan Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai Thru. Manager and Others

Anand Singh Vs Vikas Dwivedi and Another

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.Branch Office Nawabganj Vs Shehnaz Bano and Ors.

Iqbal Bahadur Singh S/O Mamta Singh Vs Smt. Seeta Rani W/O Purnamasi and Another

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Lucknow Thru. Assistant Manager Vs Smt. Sita Devi and Others