M/S Kanchita Service Station and Anr. Vs Daniel Kro

The applicants/respondents no.1 & 2 are seeking modification of the order dated 25.10.2024 passed by this Court in Arb. P. No.6/2024 with a prayer for appointment of a new Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute arising between the parties vide deed no.13390 dated 26.08.2016. The only ground urged before the Court is that the Arbitrator was chosen unilaterally by one of the parties and therefore, doubts were raised regarding unilaterally and partiality in the proposed Arbitrator.

¶22

The order dated 25.10.2024 passed in Arb. P. No.6/2024 was passed in the presence of the learned counsel for the parties. The agreement deed no.13390 dated 26.08.2016 executed between the petitioner and the respondents no. 1 & 2 had contained Arbitrator clause and which is not disputed. Notice under Section 11 was also issued but the respondent nos. 1 & 2 failed to file any response thereto. Under such circumstances, when the petitioner had issued notices to the respondents for appointment of an Arbitrator and if the respondents failed to appoint an Arbitrator even after the expiry of the prescribed period which is 30 days the date of receipt of the notice, the liberty of the respondents for appointment of an Arbitrator is lost as

¶23

Page No.# 3/3

¶24

has been held in Datar Switchgears Ltd vs. Tata Finance Ltd. reported in (2000) 8 SCC 151.

¶25

Under such circumstances, this Court by order dated 25.10.2024 had appointed an Arbitrator, namely, Shri Motilal dutta, Advocate, whose name is mentioned in the notice dated 07.11.2023 and whose name was chosen by the petitioner as an Arbitrator. The said Arbitrator had also given his written declaration under Section 12(1) expressing no difficulty or hardship. Meanwhile, after issuance of the order dated 25.10.2024, this application along with petition was listed on several dates on which date submissions were made by the learned counsel for the parties that an attempt was made to resolve the matter by way of mutual settlement. However, till date the Court has not been informed of any such settlement between the parties.

¶26

Under such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to allow the prayer in the Interlocutory Application. Accordingly, the Interlocutory Application stands dismissed.

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

Comparing Assistant

M/S Kanchita Service Station and Anr. v. Daniel Kro

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Kanchita Service Station and Anr. v. Daniel Kro

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kiran Sahariah Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Shri G Kumar Vs Union of India

Manas Sharma and 120 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Smt. Nandita Das Vs Smt Dhanasmita Das and Anr.

Daniel Kro Vs M/S Kanchita Service Station and 6 Ors.

Shilpi Das Vs the State of Assam