Dismissed

M/s Gcvd Infratech Private Limited v. Union of India

Calcutta HC10 Nov 2021AP/4/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court Circuit Bench at Port Blair considered an application under Sections 14(2) and 15(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an arbitrator after the sole arbitrator's mandate expired. The court held it lacked jurisdiction as Section 14(2) refers to the Principal District Court, dismissing the application but reserving liberty to proceed in that court.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed. Liberty reserved to approach the District Court at Port Blair within one month for appointment of arbitrator.

M/s Gcvd Infratech Private Limited Vs Union of India — Arbitration | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR

¶2

¶3

AP/4/2020

¶4

M/s GCVD Infratech Private ltd. … Petitioner Vs.

¶5

The Union of India and others … Respondents

¶6

Mr. Pardesia Munda, Advocate … for the petitioner Mr.Tulsi Lall, Advocate …for the respondents

¶7

November 10, 2021 [GNC] Item no.15

¶8

This application has been filed under Sections 14 (1) (b) and 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶9

The brief facts of the case are that one Shri K.K.Gupta, Chief Engineer was appointed Sole Arbitrator by the Engineer-inChief, Army Headquarters Integrated, Ministry of Defence on 6^th July, 2015. The Arbitrator entered upon the reference and the parties filed their pleadings. It is submitted that even after expiry of 29 months from the date of entering of reference, the appointed Arbitrator did not pronounce arbitral Award. The parties did not enlarge time beyond 31^st December, 2016.

¶10

It is submitted that Shri Gupta has since ceased to be Sole Arbitrator since his mandate came to an end on 31^st December, 2016. An application has been made to the Engineer-in-Chief for appointment of fresh Arbitrator, in terms of the Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The same has not been replied to till date.

¶11

¶12

It is argued that the jurisdiction of Court to appoint Arbitrator flows in the above circumstances, has shifted to this Court under the provisions of Section 14(2) of the Act of 1996.

¶13

Counsel for the respondents has admitted that the Court is required to appoint Arbitrator. However it is argued that the expression ‘court’ under Section 14(2) in the instant case must be read in the context of definition under Section 2(e). According to the respondents, the expression ‘court’ would mean ‘the principal court of original civil jurisdiction in a district’. He therefore argued that this Court does not have jurisdiction to appoint Arbitrator and only the Principal District Court would have jurisdiction to do so.

¶14

This Court is inclined to accept the submission of the respondents. Indeed, Section 14(2) has come into play since after failure on the part of the Chief Engineer to appoint Arbitrator in the year 2017.

¶15

However, this Court is of the view that the expression ‘court’ would mean the ‘Principal District Court and/or Principal District Judge’ which has jurisdiction over the subject matter being the District Court at Port Blair.

¶16

In that view of the matter, the application shall stand dismissed.

¶17

However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the District Court at Port Blair for appointment of Arbitrator. In the event, the petitioner applies for the same within a period of one month from date, the District Judge and/or Designate shall

¶18

¶19

proceed to consider and dispose of the said application strictly in accordance with the applicable rules.

¶20

It is made clear that this Court has not entered into any rival contentions of the parties on the entitlements of the parties.

¶21

The Arbitration Petition stands dismissed.

¶22

(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)

M/s Gcvd Infratech Private Limited v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Gcvd Infratech Private Limited v. Union of India

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

Manoj Paul Vs Union Territory, Andaman and Nicobar Islands

Gopal Das Vs the State (through Ld. Public Prosecutor)

Muthu Swamy Vs the Andaman and Nicobar Administration

Narayan Mondal Vs the Andaman and Nicobar Administration

Juran Das Vs the Administrator (Lieutenant Governor) and Ors.

Susheela Vs the Registrar, Central Registrar of Birth and Death and Others