Allowed

Dharamsinh Rajput v. Quippo Oil and Gas Infrastructure Limited

Calcutta HC15 Dec 2020AP/73/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Calcutta allowed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, appointing a sole arbitrator for a dispute arising from a service agreement, as the parties failed to appoint one as per their agreement.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Abhijit Chatterjee as sole arbitrator; fees per Fourth Schedule; staff costs shared equally.

Dharamsinh Rajput Vs Quippo Oil and Gas Infrastructure Limited — Arbitration | Calcutta HC (2020)

¶1

ORDER SHEET

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE

AP No. 73 of 2020

DHARAMSINH RAJPUT

VERSUS

QUIPPO OIL AND GAS INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED

¶7

BEFORE:

¶8

The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHIS KUMAR CHAKRABORTY Date : 15^th December, 2020.

¶9

Appearance: Mr. Debanik Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Debrup Bhattacharyya, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Kumar Ganguly, Adv. Mr. Steven Sourodip Biswas, Adv.

¶10

Mr. Rishad Medora, Adv. Mr. Soumava Mukherjee, Adv.

¶11

The Court : In this application under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, "the Act of 1996") the petitioner has prayed for appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arisen between the parties herein relating to the service agreement dated March 1, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the “said agreement”).

¶12

Admittedly, Clause 20 of the said agreement contemplates all disputes arisen between the parties thereto relating to or out of the said agreement shall be adjudicated by an Arbitrator to be nominated by the present respondent.

¶13

The peculiar feature of this application is that it is the present respondent who issued the notice dated January 2, 2020 to the present petitioner under Section 21 of the Act of 1996

¶14

¶15

requesting the latter to agree to the appointment of the Arbitrator named by the former. The present petitioner, however, did not accept the person nominated by the present respondent before the sole Arbitrator and has filed the present application.

¶16

In the present case, the existence of the arbitration agreement between the parties as well as the invocation of the arbitration agreement by them is not in dispute. The parties have, however, failed to appoint the Arbitrator as contemplated under the arbitration agreement. Thus, the present application is allowed.

¶17

Mr. Abhijit Chatterjee, Senior Advocate of Bar Library Club (First Floor), High Court at Calcutta is appointed as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties relating to the said agreement dated March 1, 2019.

¶18

The Arbitrator shall be entitled to fix his fees as per the Fourth Schedule to the Act of 1996. The Arbitrator shall also be entitled to engage the secretarial staff whose remuneration shall be borne by the parties in equal shares.

¶19

With the above directions, the application, AP No.73 of 2020 stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

¶20

Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

¶21

(ASHIS KUMAR CHAKRABORTY, J.)

¶22

s.pal

Dharamsinh Rajput v. Quippo Oil and Gas Infrastructure Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharamsinh Rajput v. Quippo Oil and Gas Infrastructure Limited

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

Similar cases

Anil Kr Das Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Srijan Realty Private Limited Vs Suneel Swaika and Anr.

Anchar Gayen Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

K. Rajesh Vs Tehsildar,Port Blair

Shyam Sel and Power Ltd. and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Usha Lubes Private Limited Vs Lingaraj Das