This request case for appointing a sole arbitrator under the General Conditions of Contract was dismissed as premature. The court held that the petitioner failed to raise a valid demand for arbitration prior to filing, as he had not previously quantified the aggregate value of his claims before the Railway.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Request Case No.3 of 2015
=========================================================== Naween Kumar, son of Late Rajendra Prasad Singh, resident of Baijnath Singh Path, Thana More Warisaliganj, Post Office & Police Station Warisaliganj, District Nawada
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
.... .... Respondents
=========================================================== Appearance: For the Petitioner: Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Abhimanyu Deo, Advocate
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 05-08-2016
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Railway.
Patna High Court REQ. CASE No.3 of 2015 dt.05-08-2016
2
letter dated 25.09.2014, but the same could not be acted upon by the Railway in absence of quantification of the value of claims by the petitioner as required in terms of Clause 64(3)(a)(i)/(ii) of the GCC to enable the Railway to decide whether the arbitral panel required to consist of a sole Arbitrator or of a panel of three Arbitrators. It is submitted that a valid demand by way of statement of claims was required to be filed by the petitioner before the Railway indicating the aggregate of the amount of claims prior to filing the Request Case, which was not done.
Patna High Court REQ. CASE No.3 of 2015 dt.05-08-2016
3
demand for arbitration as indicated above, if so advised. In such event the respondent Railway shall proceed in accordance with law, having regard time petition the recent amendments inserting Section 12(5) and The Fourth Schedule to The Seventh Schedule in The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
(Vikash Jain, J)
Chandran
| AFR/NAFR | AFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | N.A. |
| Uploading Date |
08.08.2016 |
| Transmission Date |
N.A. |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the present request case for appointment of arbitrator is maintainable absent quantification of claims before filing.
Whether the petitioner's demand for arbitration was valid as it lacked the requisite quantum of claims.
Naween Kumar
The Union of India
Vikash Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
