Khadim India Limited Thru. Authorized Representative Tapas Kumar Chakraborty vs State of U.P. Thru. Director, Basic Education and another

Court No. - 8

Case :- CIVIL MISC. ARBITRATION APPLICATION No. - 113 of 2024

Applicant :- Khadim India Limited Thru. Authorized Representative Tapas Kumar Chakraborty

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Director, Basic Education And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Mehrotra,Chinmay Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Chinmay Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent State.

¶7

The instant application has been preferred under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1996" ).

¶8

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that an agreement was entered between applicant and the respondent dated 11.11.2020 wherein the applicant had to make supplies relating to school bags of different sizes as per the demand raised by the respondents.

¶9

It is pointed out that the said agreement contained

¶10

an arbitration clause in Clause 24. It has further been pointed out prior to the invocation of arbitration clause, it was required of the aggrieved party to first invoke the good offices of the G.R.C. so that the grievance if any, could be resolved by the said Grievance Redressal Committee to be constituted by the respondents.

¶11

It is urged that certain disputes arose between the contracting parties relating to supplies and the applicant by means of the notice dated 2.9.2024, initially invoked clause 23 calling upon the respondents to constitute the grievance redressal committee. It is urged that though the said letter was served on the respondents, however, they never replied to the same nor the grievance redressal committee was constituted.

¶12

Having waited for a reasonable time without any reaction from the respondents, the applicant invoked the arbitration clause by means of its detailed notice dated 21.10.2024 calling upon the respondents to give their consent to the name proposed by the applicant for appointment of the sole arbitrator. It is urged that the said notices were received by the respondents on 24.10.2024

¶13

but they did not respond as such the procedure as agreed by the parties to appoint the Sole Arbitrator. Accordingly, the applicant has approached this court by means of the instant application seeking appointment of the learned Arbitrator.

¶14

Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that there are disputes between the parties regarding the supplies made by the applicant. There were certain other submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent State, however they are not on merits of the disputes and thus not relevant at this stage. For the instant purposes suffice to notice that the learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the fact that there is an arbitration clause in the agreement entered in between the parties. He also does not deny that the notice sent by the applicant calling upon the respondents to constitute a Grievance Redressal Committee, was not answered nor the notice invoking the arbitration clause was responded by the respondents.

¶15

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances where the basic facts are not in dispute, hence this Court

¶16

finds that there are live disputes between the parties and this Court finds that it is a fit case for appointment of the Arbitrator.

¶17

Accordingly, this Court proposes the name of Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.K.Arora (Retd. Judge of this Court), Address Tye V/2, New Campus SGPGI, Rae Bareli Road, Lucknow, Mobile No.9415006214, to

¶18

be appointed as a Sole Arbitrator to settle the dispute between the parties.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant shall provide a complete set of paperbook in the office which shall be forwarded to the proposed Arbitrator to seek his consent in terms of Section 12(6) of the Act of 1996. Office shall seek the required consent, within three weeks.

¶20

List this case on 5.8.2025.

¶21

Order Date :- 3.7.2025

¶22

Shukla

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Khadim India Limited Thru. Authorized Representative Tapas Kumar Chakraborty v. State of U.P. Thru. Director, Basic Education and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khadim India Limited Thru. Authorized Representative Tapas Kumar Chakraborty v. State of U.P. Thru. Director, Basic Education 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Deepa Singh and Another Vs Addl. Commissioner Judicial, Ayodhya Region, Ayodhya and 6 Others

Ajay Rastogi Vs Krishna Gopal and 10 Others

Bachch Raj Vs the Court of Learned, Tehsildar Tehsil Kaisarganj, Bahraich and Another

Upma Singh vs U.P. State Road Transport Corporation through its Managing Director

Hari Shankar Singh and Another vs Anurag Pandey, Naib Tehsildar, Sadar, Gonda

Munni Lal vs Board of Revenue U.P. Lko. Thru. Judicial Member and 15 Others