Disposed¶22

M/S Ops Associates v. Garrison Engineer

Calcutta HC7 Jan 2026AP/11/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sole Arbitrator appointment by consent; Section 70 GCC arbitration clause; live claim; failure of respondent to proceed; TRF Limited (2017) 8 SCC 377 relied on for elimination of party-appointment mechanism; ONGC vs. Afcons Gunanusa JV (2024) 4 SCC 481 applied on arbitrator's fees; equal sharing of arbitral costs; Anjili Nag appointed; Port Blair Circuit Bench; CPWD/MES contract dispute.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Ms. Anjili Nag, learned Senior Advocate, as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties; arbitrator empowered to fix venue and fees per (2024) 4 SCC 481; arbitration costs and fees to be shared equally by the parties. ¶22

M/S Ops Associates Vs Garrison Engineer — Arbitration | Calcutta HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether a Sole Arbitrator should be appointed to adjudicate the live disputes and differences between the parties under the contract, the contractual appointment mechanism under the GCC having been eliminated following the amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Supreme Court precedent. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

The claim is prima facie live and not long barred; the arbitration agreement has been invoked and the respondents have failed to proceed with the arbitration.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

Although the arbitration agreement subsists, the contractual mechanism for appointment of an arbitrator (Condition 70, GCC) has stood eliminated in view of the amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Supreme Court judgments starting from TRF Limited vs. Energo Engineering Projects Limited (2017) 8 SCC 377.

¶14

Key takeaways

By consent of the parties, Ms. Anjili Nag, learned Senior Advocate, is appointed as Sole Arbitrator to enter upon the reference and adjudicate the disputes and differences between the parties, the proceedings to be conducted under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.ratio¶18
The arbitrator may fix the venue in consultation with the parties and fix her fees in consultation with the parties in accordance with the ratio in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. Afcons Gunanusa JV, (2024) 4 SCC 481.ratio¶19
Venue charges, secretarial assistance charges, other incidental expenses and the arbitrator's fees shall be shared equally by the parties.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Arbitration petition (AP/11/2025), High Court at Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair (Arindam Mukherjee, J.), decided January 7, 2026. M/s OPS Associates, awarded work under CA No. GE/MB/PB/39 of 2023-24 (voltage stabilizer works at NTS Teylarabad and ductable AC plant replacement at INS Utkrosh under GE Minnie Bay, Port Blair), invoked the arbitration clause (Condition 70, GCC providing for a Sole Arbitrator) after disputes arose, but the respondents failed to proceed. Holding the claim prima facie live and not time-barred, and noting that although the arbitration agreement subsists, the contractual arbitrator-appointment mechanism stands eliminated in view of the 1996 Act amendment and Supreme Court authority beginning with TRF Limited vs. Energo Engineering Projects Limited (2017) 8 SCC 377, the Court, by consent, appointed Ms. Anjili Nag, learned Senior Advocate, as Sole Arbitrator. The arbitrator may fix venue and fix her fees in consultation with the parties per Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. Afcons Gunanusa JV, (2024) 4 SCC 481; venue, secretarial and incidental charges and the arbitrator's fees are to be shared equally by the parties. Petition disposed of.

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

¶3

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ]

AP/11/2025

M/s OPS Associates

Vs.

Garrison Engineer

Mr. Mohammed Tabraiz …for the petitioner

¶10

Mr. V.D. Sivabalan … for the respondent

¶11

January 7, 2026 [SR] Item No.9

¶12

The petitioner was awarded the work under CA No. GE/ MB/PB/39 of 2023-24 for provision of three phase volatage stabilizer at NTS Teylarabad and special repair replacement of ductable AC Plant of 33 TR at INS Utkrosh under GE Minnie Bay, Port Blair.

¶13

After hearing the parties, it appears that the disputes and differences have arisen in connection with the aforesaid contract awarded to the petitioner which are live in nature. The contract provides for resolution of disputes through arbitration. The General Conditions Contract (in short GCC) has been made a part of the agreement for the work allotted to the petitioner. Condition 70 of GCC provides for resolution of disputes through a Sole Arbitrator.

¶14

The arbitration agreement between the parties are in subsistence but the mechanism which provides for appointment of an arbitrator has stood eliminated in view of the amendment in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 followed by several

¶15

¶16

Supreme Court’s judgments starting from TRF Limited –vsEnergo Engineering Projects Limited (2017) 8 SCC 377.

¶17

The claim, prima facie appears to be live and not a long barred claim. The arbitration agreement has been invoked and there has been failure on the part of the respondents in proceeding with the arbitration.

¶18

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and by consent of the parties, Ms. Anjili Nag, learned Senior Advocate is appointed as a Sole Arbitrator to enter into the reference and adjudicate the disputes and differences between the parties. The arbitration proceeding shall be conducted in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966.

¶19

The learned Arbitrator so appointed shall be entitled to fix the venue of the sitting in consultation with the parties. The learned Arbitrator shall also be entitled to fix her fees in consultation with the parties in accordance with the ratio laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2024) 4 SCC 481 (Oil and Natural Gas Corporation

¶20

Limited vs. Afcons Gunanusa JV).

¶21

The venue charges, the secretarial assistance charges to the learned Arbitrator and other incidental expenses along with the fees of the Arbitrator shall be equally shared by the parties.

¶22

AP/11/2025 is accordingly disposed of.

¶23

( Arindam Mukherjee, J. )

M/S Ops Associates v. Garrison Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Ops Associates v. Garrison Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Hemkund Steel Industry (A-1088) Vs Union of India and Ors.

Vaibhav Gupta Vs the Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands

M/S. Zydus Healthcare Ltd. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Prasur Electrical and Engineer Company Vs Garrison Engineer

Prasur Electricals and Engineering Company Vs Commander Works Engineer

M/S Ops Associates Vs Garrison Engineer