Disposed

Prasur Electricals and Engineering Company v. Commander Works Engineer

Calcutta HC7 Jan 2026AP/8/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disputes arose under a road works contract at INS Utkrosh, Port Blair, containing an arbitration clause. The court held the claims live and the agreement subsistent, with the GCC arbitrator-appointment mechanism rendered ineffective by the amended Arbitration Act. By consent, it appointed Ms. Anjili Nag as Sole Arbitrator and disposed of the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Prasur Electricals and Engineering Company Vs Commander Works… — Arbitration | Calcutta HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ]

¶3

¶4

AP/8/2025

¶5

Prasur Electrical and Engineer Company

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Commander Works Engineer

¶8

Mr. Mohammed Tabraiz …for the petitioner Mr. V.D. Sivabalan … for the respondent

¶9

January 7, 2026 [SR] Item No.6

¶10

The petitioner was awarded the work under CA No. CWE/PB/MB/16 of 2024-2025 for ADDN/ALTN to road from Sangram Dwar to LRMR Hangar at INS Utkrosh under GE Minniebay, Port Blair.

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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).

¶17

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.

¶18

AP/8/2025 is accordingly disposed of.

¶19

( Arindam Mukherjee, J. )

Prasur Electricals and Engineering Company v. Commander Works Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Prasur Electricals and Engineering Company v. Commander Works Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

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

M/S Ops Associates Vs Garrison Engineer

M/S Ops Associates Vs Garrison Engineer