Disposed

Birat Chandra Dagara v. Manash Ranjan Mohanty

Orissa HC13 Sept 2021WP(C)/23667/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa held that a writ petition challenging arbitration proceedings is not maintainable when a petition under Section 16 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 is already pending before the Arbitrator on the same ground. The matter was disposed of directing the Arbitrator to decide the Section 16 petition expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of; the Arbitrator is directed to dispose of the pending petition under Section 16 of the Act expeditiously.

Birat Chandra Dagara Vs Manash Ranjan Mohanty — Arbitration | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.23667 of 2021

¶3

Sri Birat Chandra Dagara .……. Petitioner Mr. Banshidhar Baug, Adv.

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

Sri Manash Ranjan Mohanty & another.……. Opposite Parties
Mr. S.P. Mishra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S. Satyakam, Adv.
(For O.P. No.2)
CORAM:
JUSTICE C.R. DASH
ORDER
13.09.2021
Order No.
02.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode).

¶6

Heard Mr. Banshidhar Baug, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. S. Satyakam, Advocate appearing for opposite party No.2.

¶7

It is submitted by Mr. Baug, learned counsel for the petitioner that, he has not filed any petition under Section 16 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short hereinafter called as “the Act”) before the Arbitrator on the self-same ground, on which the present writ petition has been filed.

¶8

On the other hand, it is submitted by Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for opposite party No.2 that, such a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 16 of the Act is pending before the Arbitrator as per Annexure-A/2 to the counter affidavit.

¶9

At this point, the contention of Mr. Baug is that the Arbitration proceeding, having been initiated unilaterally in a biased manner, he has the necessary right to prefer this writ petition, even though assuming arguenda, the petition under Section 16 of the Act is pending before the Arbitrator.

¶10

It is no more res integra that a writ petition, against the arbitration proceeding, is not maintainable, though the question is debatable according to Mr. Baug.

¶11

When a petition under Section 16 of the Act on the self-same ground, on which the writ petition has been preferred, has been filed before the Arbitrator, the same should be disposed of by the Arbitrator in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, after giving opportunity of hearing to both the

¶12

parties concerned.

¶13

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed

¶14

of.

¶15

Urgent certified copy of this Order be granted as per rules.

¶16

………………………….

¶17

(C.R. Dash) JUDGE

¶18

Subha

Birat Chandra Dagara v. Manash Ranjan Mohanty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Birat Chandra Dagara v. Manash Ranjan Mohanty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prasanta Kumar Behera Vs State of Odisha

Satyaranjan Naik Vs the General Manager,(H.a.), Nalco

Dhirendra Swain Vs State of Odisha

Suresh Kumar Panda Vs Basanti Panda

Harbinder Singh Deengra Vs Director, Vigilance

Pradip Kumar Barik Vs State of Odisha