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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appointment of Ms. Anjili Nag, learned Senior Advocate, as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties; arbitrator to fix venue and fees (per (2024) 4 SCC 481) in consultation with the parties; venue charges, secretarial assistance, incidental expenses and arbitrator's fees to be shared equally by the parties.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should appoint a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the live disputes between the parties arising out of the contract, the contractual mechanism for appointment of an arbitrator (GCC Condition 70) having become unavailable.

Court's answer

The mechanism under the contract providing for appointment of an arbitrator has stood eliminated in view of the amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and several Supreme Court judgments beginning with TRF Limited vs. Energo Engineering Projects Limited, (2017) 8 SCC 377.

Ratio / Principle

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

Key takeaways

By consent of the parties, Ms. Anjili Nag, learned Senior Advocate, is appointed as Sole Arbitrator to enter into the reference and adjudicate the disputes and differences between the parties; the arbitration proceeding is to be conducted in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (printed in the judgment as the 1966 Act).ratio¶17
The learned Arbitrator may fix the venue of sitting in consultation with the parties and fix her fees in consultation with the parties in accordance with the ratio laid down in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. Afcons Gunanusa JV, (2024) 4 SCC 481.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Arbitration petition (AP/14/2025, Circuit Bench at Port Blair) disposed of. Disputes under contract CA No. GE(I) 866 EWS/22 of 2022-23 (HT 11 KV underground cable ring main, AF STN Car Nicobar) were held live and not long-barred; the arbitration agreement stood invoked but the respondents failed to proceed. The contractual appointment mechanism (Condition 70 of the GCC, Sole Arbitrator) was held eliminated in view of the amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Supreme Court authority commencing with TRF Limited vs. Energo Engineering Projects Limited, (2017) 8 SCC 377. By consent, Ms. Anjili Nag, learned Senior Advocate, was appointed Sole Arbitrator; the proceeding to follow the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (printed as the 1966 Act); venue and fees to be settled in consultation with the parties per the ratio in ONGC vs. Afcons Gunanusa JV, (2024) 4 SCC 481; venue charges, secretarial assistance, incidental expenses and arbitrator's fees to be borne equally by the parties.

1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ]

AP/14/2025

M/s OPS Associates

Vs.

Garrison Engineer (I)

Mr. Mohammed Tabraiz …for the petitioner

Mr. V.D. Sivabalan … for the respondent

January 7, 2026 [SR] Item No.12

The petitioner was awarded the work under CA No. GE(I) 866 EWS/22 of 2022-23 for provn of ring main system of HT 11 KV underground cable from Hangar Substation to Base OPS Substation at AF STN Car Nicobar.

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.

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

2

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.

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.

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 Limited vs. Afcons Gunanusa JV).

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.

AP/14/2025 is accordingly disposed of.

( Arindam Mukherjee, J. )