Disposed

M/S G.D. Engineering Construction v. the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC4 Jun 2018I.A.(Civil)/4165/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court appointed Ms. Nayan Sarma as a new arbitrator to consider an application under Section 33(4) of the Act filed by the petitioner against an earlier award, finding the previous arbitrator unfit due to illness and lack of inclination to adjudicate.

What did the court decide?

Interlocutory application disposed of; Mrs. Nayan Sharma appointed as arbitrator to consider the Section 33(4) application.

M/S G.D. Engineering Construction Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors. — Arbitration | Gauhati HC (2018)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010056802017

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Civil) 4165/2017

¶5

1:M/S G.D. ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1:THE UNION OF INDIA and 2 ORS

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : PETITIONER IN PERSON

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.

¶10

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Date : 04-06-2018

¶13

Heard Mr. G.D. Dhiman, the petitioner-in-person. Also heard Mr. H. Gupta, learned Central Government counsel, appearing for all the respondents.

¶14

On 24.04.2018, this Court passed the following order:-

¶15

“Heard Mr. G.D. Dhiman, the petitioner in person and also heard Mr. H. Gupta, learned Central Govt. counsel, appearing for the respondents.

¶16

The arbitrator appointed by the court had passed and published an award dated 02.01.2016.

¶17

The petitioner filed an application before the arbitrator under Section 33 (4) of the Arbitration and Concilation Act, 1996, for short, the Act. The said application was not attended to by the arbitrator because of his ill health and on 28.09.2017 the arbitrator wrote a letter to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial-1) of the

¶18

Page No.# 2/3

¶19

court not to appoint him as an arbitrator for the time being as he was unwell and residing at Mumbai.

¶20

The petitioner has also brought on record a letter dated 27.01.2016 of the Secretary to the Tribunal (the arbitrator who was appointed in the instant case) addressed to the District and Sessions Judge, Sector 43 Chandigarh-43, indicating that the arbitrator of this case had undergone bypass surgery and was still undergoing treatment.

¶21

In such circumstances, the petitioner prays for calling for the record of arbitration proceedings from the arbitrator appointed earlier and to appoint a new arbitrator to consider the said application under Section 33(4) of the Act.

¶22

Mr. Gupta submits that material on record indicates that the earlier arbitrator is not inclined to take up the aforesaid application and, therefore, another arbitrator may be appointed to consider the application under Section 33 (4) of the Act and to pass appropriate order.

¶23

Having regard to the above, Registry is directed to call for the records of Arbitration Case No. 04/2014-15 from Col. Manoranjan Goswami (Retd.), the arbitrator earlier appointed by this court in Arb.P. 03/2014.

¶24

In the circumstances of the case, I propose to appoint Ms. Nayan Sarma (Retd.) Chief Engineer, Guwahati as an arbitrator to take up the application of the petitioner under Section 33 (4) of the Act.

¶25

Ms. Nayan Sarma (Retd.) Chief Engineer, Guwahati is requested to send a disclosure statement, in writing, that there will not be justifiable doubts about her independence or impartiality in relation to subject-matter in dispute and availability of time in terms of Section 11(8) read with Section 12 of the 1996 Act. Such disclosure statement may be sent to the Joint Registrar (Judicial).

¶26

Registry will send a copy each of this order, arbitration award already passed, the arbitration Petition No. 03/2014 as well as I.A. (Civil) No. 4165/2017 to Ms. Sarma.

¶27

List for further orders on 4^th June, 2018.”

¶28

Mrs. Nayan Sharma has issued a disclosure statement dated 07.05.2018 indicating that there will be no impediment for her to be appointed as an Arbitrator.

¶29

Page No.# 3/3

¶30

Mr. Gupta submits that the petitioner had received the amount in terms of the award passed on 02.01.2016 and, therefore, the petitioner cannot raise a demand for arbitration for additional award.

¶31

Perusal of the order dated 24.04.2018 shows that Mr. Gupta himself had submitted that the earlier Arbitrator was not inclined to take up the application filed by the petitioner under Section 33(4) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and, therefore, another Arbitrator may be appointed to consider the application under Section 33(4) of the 1996 Act and to pass appropriate order.

¶32

No objection was filed the respondents to this interlocutory application.

¶33

In that view of the matter, Mrs. Nayan Sharma, retired Chief Engineer, PWD (Building), Assam with the address at 96, Borthakur Mill Road, Ulubari, Guwahati781007, Assam, is appointed as Arbitrator.

¶34

Registry will send a copy of this order to Mrs. Nayan Sharma.

¶35

The interlocutory application stands disposed of.

¶36

J U D G E

¶37

M. Sharma

¶38

Comparing Assistant

M/S G.D. Engineering Construction v. the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S G.D. Engineering Construction v. the Union of India and 2 Ors.

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

Duleshwar Saikia Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Bhadreswar Bora Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

M/S Joganiar Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Dilzan Khatun Vs the State of Assam and 12 Ors.

Harendra Singha Vs the State of Assam

Harendra Singha Vs the State of Assam and 14 Ors.