Disposed

Camry Developers Through Its Proprietor Vinod Jindal v. Smt Shefali Roy

Jharkhand HC17 Nov 2017A.APPL/18/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court appointed Mr. N.N. Singh as a sole independent arbitrator to adjudicate a dispute arising from a development agreement between the parties, exercising powers under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

What did the court decide?

Appointed Mr. N.N. Singh as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

Camry Developers Through Its Proprietor Vinod Jindal Vs Smt… — Arbitration | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Arbitration Application No. 18 of 2016

¶3

Camry Developers -----Petitioner Versus Smt. Shefali Roy ----- Respondent

¶4

CORAM: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh

¶5

For the Petitioner: Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate

¶6

15/ 17.11.2017 Heard counsel for the parties.

¶7

By order dated 18.08.2017, this court proposed to appoint Mr. N.N. Singh, retired judicial officer, presently working as Member, District Consumer Forum, Dhanbad as an independent Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. Declaration of the proposed Arbitrator has been submitted in terms of Section 12(i) (b) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as amended by the Act 3 of 2016, which has been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. The earlier declaration given by the proposed Arbitrator was not in the prescribed format which necessitated a fresh declaration.

¶8

Learned counsel for the parties submit that the matter can now be referred to the Learned Arbitrator for adjudicating the dispute within the time frame stipulated under section 29-A of the Act of 1996.

¶9

For better appreciation, the order dated 18.08.2017 is reproduced hereunder.

¶10

“Heard counsel for the parties.

¶11

Petitioner has invoked Clause-16 of the Development Agreement dated 10.07.2013 (Annexure-1) for appointment of Arbitral Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute arising out of the Agreement. After failing to receive any response pursuant to the notice dated 21.02.2014 (Annexure4) upon the Respondent, petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of Hon'ble the Chief Justice under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator.

¶12

Mediation exercise to resolve the dispute between the parties during the pendency of this application however failed, as per the report at Annexure-A being letter no. 1393 dated 08.05.2017 of the Learned Mediator, JHALSA.

¶13

Counsel for the parties proposed on the previous date that instead of a panel of three Arbitrators, the matter can be referred for adjudication to a sole Arbitrator by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an affidavit to that effect dated 07.08.2017. Learned counsel for the Respondent also states on instruction that they are agreeable to reference of the dispute to the sole Arbitrator. Counsel for the parties however submit that it would be convenient for the parties if arbitration proceeding is held at Dhanbad under a retired judicial officer.

¶14

Accordingly, in exercise of powers vested by the Hon'ble Acting Chief

¶15

¶16

Justice in terms of Rule 3(1) of Jharkhand High Court Rules, I hereby propose to appoint Mr. N.N. Singh, retired judicial officer, presently working as Member, District Consumer Forum, Dhanbad (Mobile No. 09431166320) as an independent Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. Learned counsel for the parties are required to submit a declaration by the proposed Arbitrator in terms of section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as amended by the Act 3 of 2016, within a period of three weeks.

¶17

6.Post the matter on 08.09.2017 for further orders.”

¶18

I, therefore, appoint Mr. N.N. Singh as an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. Learned Arbitrator would be at liberty to lay down his fees and the expenses required in the conduct of the proceedings, however keeping into account the principles and ceiling laid down under 4^th Schedule of the Act. Learned Arbitrator though has inadvertently perhaps proposed a time frame of 24 months, but in the fitness of things and keeping into light of statutory provisions contained in section 29-A of the Act of 1996, would endeavour to conclude the Arbitration Proceedings expeditiously. Let a copy of the instant order along with the entire pleadings be communicated to the Learned Arbitrator by the Registry. The instant application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶19

( Aparesh Kumar Singh, J )

¶20

Ranjeet/

Camry Developers Through Its Proprietor Vinod Jindal v. Smt Shefali Roy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Camry Developers Through Its Proprietor Vinod Jindal v. Smt Shefali Roy

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

Genesis Represented by Its Proprietor Sri Prahlad Kakar Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Union of India through General Vs Najim Mistri And Anr.

Yugal Kishore Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Human Resource Development Deptt and Anr.

Rcm Infrastructure Limited through Its Managing Director Sri Koneru Subbiah Chowdry Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Dhananjay Kumar Srivastava Vs Welfare

Sundar Yadav Vs The Union Of India Through Assistant General Manager Food Corporation Of India And Ors.