Allowed

M/s.B.E.Billimoria & Co., v. The Director

Madras HC27 Jun 2017OP/93/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court terminated the mandate of the sole arbitrator who was an employee of a Ministry-controlled entity, creating a conflict of interest with the petitioner. Justice Anita Sumanth exercised her powers under Section 11(4) to appoint Mr. S. Pattabiraman as the new independent sole arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from a construction agreement.

What did the court decide?

The petition was allowed, the mandate of the second respondent was terminated, and Mr. S. Pattabiraman was appointed as the new Sole Arbitrator. Original parties bear their own costs.

M/s.B.E.Billimoria & Co., Vs The Director — Arbitration | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED 27.06.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶6

O.P. No.93 of 2017

¶7

M/s.B.E.Billimoria & Co. Limited, rep. by its Managing Director. .. Petitioner -vs1.The Director, Engineering Services Group, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research – Kalpakkam, Department of Atomic Energy, Kalpakkam. 2.P.Kashyap .. Respondents

¶8

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11(4) read with Section 14 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 to terminate the mandate of the present arbitral tribunal (comprising of the second respondent) and appoint an independent Arbitrator to arbitrate all the disputes and claims arising out of the Agreement dated 03.03.2011 and to direct the respondent to pay the cost of the petition.

¶9

For Petitioner : Ms.M.Vaidyanathan

¶10

For Respondents : Mr.Rabu Manohar

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

This petition has been filed seeking termination of the mandate

¶13

of the present Arbitral Tribuna, the second respondent herein and

¶14

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶15

¶16

appointment of a new Arbitrator under Clause 25 of the Agreement for Construction of Head End Cells (Balance Works) for DFRP at IGCAR Kalpakkam and Allied Works dated 03.03.2011.

¶17

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that an agreement had been entered into between the parties on 03.03.2011 for Construction of Head End Cells (Balance Works) for DFRP at IGCAR Kalpakkam and Allied Works. On account of disputes that arise between the parties, the dispute resolution clause was invoked. Clause 25 dealing with the settlement of disputes and arbitration and contains a condition that the appointment of Arbitrator may be made only by the Director, IGCAR/Secretary, DAE and if for any reason that it is not possible, the matter shall not be referred to arbitration at all.

¶18

3.It appears that the second respondent had expressed his

¶19

willingness to his nomination as a Sole Arbitrator. However, the nomination is hit by clause 22 of Schedule V of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 which prohibits a close relationship between the Arbitrator and a party to the proceeding. The second respondent was employed in the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited as an

¶20

Additional General Manager (Vigilance). Since the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited is directly controlled by the Ministry

¶21

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶22

¶23

Atomic Energy, there is a close relationship between respondents 1 and 2.

¶24

4.The learned counsel for the first respondent does not dispute the aforesaid factual position and as such the prayer for termination of the mandate of the second respondent and appointment of Arbitrator are accepted.

¶25

5.They brings me to the second aspect of the matter as to who would take the place of the second respondent Arbitrator. The Director, IGCAR has suggested the nominations of two persons namely Mr.S.Pattabiraman, Principal Chief Engineer (Civil), BSNL, (retired) and V.R.Rengasamy, Chief Engineer (retired). Both learned counsel agree that Mr.S.Pattabiraman may be appointed as Arbitrator to resolve the disputes arising out of agreement dated 03.03.2011.

¶26

6.I, thus, appoint Mr.S.Pattabiraman, Principal Chief Engineer

¶27

(Civil), BSNL, Tamil Nadu Circle, (retired), 3/380, (Plot 23) Vaigai Street, Ganga Nagar, Madipakkam, Chennai - 600 091, as the Sole Arbitrator to enter upon reference and adjudicate the disputes inter se

¶28

the parties and after issuing notice to the parties and upon hearing them, pass an award as expeditiously as possible, preferably

¶29

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶30

¶31

vga

¶32

DR.ANITA SUMANTH,J.

¶33

within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order. The learned Arbitrator is at liberty to fix his remuneration and other incidental expenses, which shall be borne by both the parties equally. The proceedings may be conducted under the aegis of the Madras High Court Arbitration Centre in accordance with the Madras High Court Arbitration Rules.

¶34

7.The Original Petition is, accordingly, allowed, leaving the
parties to bear their own costs.

¶35

27.06.2017
vga

¶36

O.P. No.93 of 2017

¶37

http://www.judis.nic.in

M/s.B.E.Billimoria & Co., v. The Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.B.E.Billimoria & Co., v. The Director

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

Ramesh Raja Vs M/s.Shriram City Union

M/s.consolidated Construction Vs Maruti Suzuki India Limited

M/S. Shriram City Union Financ Vs M.S. Sainath

Sundaram Finance Limited Vs Dinesh Podey

M/S.Sundaram Finance Limited Vs M/S.Podey Patil Logistics Pvt.

M/s.Sri Pavalambigai Paper and Vs Mr.Ambrose