Allowed

M/s. Resistoflex Dynamics Pvt. Ltd, v. M/s. Controller of Stores, Integral Coach Factory

Madras HC1 Nov 2021OP/392/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashes the appointment of an arbitrator who was not independent under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court allowed the petitioner to select an independent arbitrator from the Panel of External Arbitrators provided by the respondent and directed the new arbitrator to fix the venue and decide within six months.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Mr. S.K. Sood as Sole Arbitrator; venue left to arbitrator's discretion; fees fixed per Schedule and borne equally by parties; award to be passed within six months.

M/s. Resistoflex Dynamics Pvt. Ltd, Vs M/s. Controller of Stores… — Arbitration | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

O.P.No.392 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated 01.11.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

O.P.No. 392 of 2021 and A.No.1905 of 2021 M/s Resistoflex Dynamics Pvt. Ltd. through authorised signatory, having its registered office at Plot No.27-28, Udyog Vihar, Greater Noida 201306, Uttar Pradesh ... Petitioner Vs.

¶7

M/s Controller of Stores, Integral Coach Factory, having its office at Integral Coach Factory, Chennai 600 038.

¶8

Mr. Y.P.Reddy, CMM/Elec, Integral Coach Factory, Chennai 600 038.

¶9

General Manager, Integral Coach Factory, Chennai 600 038. .... Respondents

¶10

PRAYER : Original Petition filed under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the appointment of the Mr.Y.P.Reddy, CMM/ELECT, Integral Coach Factory as the Arbitrator appointed by the General Manager, Integral Coach Factory vide letter

¶11

Page 1 of 6

¶12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶13

O.P.No.392 of 2021

¶14

dated 10.03.2021 and consequently for substitution of an independent Arbitrator under Sections 11 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996.

¶15

For petitioner : Mr.T.M.Hariharan For respondents : Mrs. A.Srijeyani O R D E R This original petition has been filed challenging the appointment of Mr.Y.P.Reddy, CMM/ELECT, Integral Coach Factory as the Arbitrator, appointed by the General Manager, Integral Coach Factory vide letter dated 10.03.2021 and consequently for substitution of an independent Arbitrator under Sections 11 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996.

¶16

The contention of the petitioner is that specific requests have

¶17

been made by the petitioner to the third respondent for appointment of an independent Arbitrator, in accordance with Section 12(5) of the

¶18

Arbitration and Conciliation Act. But the requests of the petitioner were rejected by the third respondent. Further, in violation of Section 12(5) of the Act, the third respondent had appointed the second respondent as

¶19

Page 2 of 6

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶21

O.P.No.392 of 2021

¶22

an Arbitrator vide letter dated 10.03.2021. Pursuant to the above appointment, the second respondent vide letter dated 24.03.2021, directed the petitioner to submit a self-contained statement of facts, claims. According to the petitioner, the continuation of the proceedings

¶23

of the second respondent is in violation of Section 12(5) of the Act.

¶24

Hence, the petitioner prayed to appoint an independent Arbitrator to

¶25

enter upon the reference and adjudicate the same.

¶26

GCC (General Condition of Contract) and IRS are part of the contract

¶27

agreement and the ICF is constrained to follow the same. The further contention of the respondents is that the appointment of Arbitrator under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, is not applicable to the present case and hence, the petition is liable to be

¶28

dismissed.

¶29

Pursuant to the direction of this court, the learned counsel for

¶30

the respondents submitted the Panel of External Arbitrators in ICF, as

¶31

on 27.09.2021.

¶32

Page 3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶33

O.P.No.392 of 2021

¶34

As per the conditions of the GCC (General Condition of Contract) and IRS, choice is given to the applicant to select any one of the Arbitrators in ICF. Accordingly, from the above Panel of External Arbitrators, the petitioner selected Mr.S.K.Sood Rtd. GM/CR, Flat No.C/013, Belvedere Park, DLF Phase-3, Gurgaon-122002, [email protected] 09004411110. Further, it is stated by the learned

¶35

counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is at Delhi and hence, the Arbitrator may be directed to fix the Venue at Delhi.

¶36

It is to be noted that the Arbitrator is having discretionary

¶37

power to choose the venue, taking note of the convenience of the parties. Therefore, fixing of Venue is left to the Arbitrator, after considering the convenience of both the parties.

¶38

Accordingly, it is ordered as follows.

¶39

i) That Mr. S.K.Sood Rtd. GM/CR, Flat

¶40

No.C/013, Belvedere Park, DLF Phase-3, Gurgaon-122002, [email protected] 09004411110, is appointed as a Sole Arbitrator to enter upon reference and adjudicate the matter.

¶41

Page 4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶42

O.P.No.392 of 2021

¶43

ii] That the learned Arbitrator appointed herein, shall after issuing notice to the parties and upon hearing them, pass an award as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the Order.

¶44

iii] That the fees of Arbitrator and other incidental charges shall be fixed, as per the Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the same shall be borne by the parties equally. 8. This Original petition is ordered accordingly, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 01.11.2021 Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes mst

¶45

Page 5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶46

O.P.No.392 of 2021

¶47

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

mst

O.P.No.392 of 2021

01.11.2021

Page 6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

M/s. Resistoflex Dynamics Pvt. Ltd, v. M/s. Controller of Stores, Integral Coach Factory

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Resistoflex Dynamics Pvt. Ltd, v. M/s. Controller of Stores, Integral Coach Factory

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

Mr.M.Parthasarathy and 3 others Vs M/s Chettinadd Housing Promoters

M/s.Cholamandalm Investment and Finance Com Vs Mr.Riyas Ali M

M/s Vijay Foundation Pvt. Ltd, Rep.by its Managing Director, Vs M/s Sreshta Builders Pvt. Ltd, Represented by its Director,Mr.Sumanth Subramanian

Mr. K.R. Appavoo Vs Kapilgupta

Mrs.E.S.M.Ahamed Mariyam Vs M/s.Ps Srijan Developers LLP

Poonimadevi Vs the State Rep. by Its