Disposed¶22

Ajeet Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC22 Jul 2025CWJC/9925/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court; CWJC No.9925 of 2017; Ajeet Kumar v. The State of Bihar; Ganpati Rice Mill; Nawada; Collector as Arbitrator; District Magistrate and Collector; Arbitration Case No. 11(M)/2016; Clause-16 deed of Agreement; Section 12(5) Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act 2015; Entry-1 Seventh Schedule; Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; Principal Civil Court; challenge to arbitral award; disposed of; liberty to pursue remedies; NAFR; 22-07-2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; petitioner left at liberty to pursue his remedies before the appropriate forum, including challenging the Collector's order before the Civil Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act; interlocutory application(s), if any, stand disposed of. ¶22

Ajeet Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Arbitration | Patna HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the appointment of the Collector as Arbitrator vide Clause-16 of the deed of Agreement, and the resulting arbitration order dated 24.03.2017, stand vitiated as violative of Section 12(5) and Entry-1 of the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

Under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a person aggrieved by the award may challenge the same before the Principal Civil Court.

¶19

Key takeaways

The petitioner is always at liberty to pursue his remedies before the appropriate forum.ratio¶21
In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is disposed of.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Oral judgment (NAFR) dated 22-07-2025 of the Patna High Court (Smt. G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J) disposing of CWJC No.9925 of 2017 filed by a rice-mill proprietor against the State of Bihar and others. The petition challenged the order dated 24.03.2017 passed by the District Magistrate and Collector, Nawada (respondent No. 4) as Arbitrator in Arbitration Case No. 11(M)/2016 - the arbitrator having been appointed vide Clause-16 of the deed of Agreement - as violative of Section 12(5) and Entry-1 of the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, rendering the award bad in law. The Court noted that a proceeding had been initiated under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with the Collector as appointed Arbitrator, and that Section 34 of that Act permits an aggrieved person to challenge the award before the Principal Civil Court. On counsel's request, the petitioner was held at liberty to pursue his remedies before the appropriate forum, and the writ petition and any interlocutory application(s) were disposed of. The Court did not adjudicate the merits of the Section 12(5)/Seventh Schedule objection.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9925 of 2017

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Ajeet Kumar Son of Dhanushdhari Pandey, Proprietor of M/s Ganpati Rice Mill, Bara Pandeya Roh, P.S.- Roh, District- Nawada.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Bihar and Ors

¶7

The Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporations Limited, Patna.

¶8

The District Manager, State Food Corporation Limited, Nawada.

¶9

The District Magistrate and Collector, Nawada.

¶10

===============	... . =============================	.. Respondent/s ==========
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s	: Mr. Anuj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rabish Kumar, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Kumari, Adv.
For the Respondent/s ===============	: Mr. Arvind Ujjwal-SC-4 Mr. Shailendra Kr. Singh, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Utpal, Adv. =============================	==========

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶13

Date : 22-07-2025

¶14

Heard the Learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

The Writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 24.03.2017 passed in the Arbitration Case No. 11(M)/2016 by the Arbitrator i.e. District Magistrate and Collector, Nawada (respondent No. 4) for the reason that the said appointment of arbitrator vide Clause-16 of the deed of Agreement is in itself violative of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 and also is

¶16

Patna High Court CWJC No.9925 of 2017 dt.22-07-2025 2/3

¶17

against the provision as enshrined under Entry-1 of the Seventh Schedule of Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, and therefore, the arbitration award under challenge is bad in law and has no legal stands.

¶18

During the course of arguments, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in view of the amendment to the Arbitration Act, the Collector himself is not competent to pass any order. However, in the present case, the order was passed by the Collector, which came to the notice of the petitioner only upon receipt of the counter affidavit.

¶19

A proceeding has been initiated under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and in terms of the agreement the Collector was appointed as Arbitrator to decide the case. There is provision under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which provides that if any person is aggrieved by the award he may challenge the same before the Principal Civil Court.

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.9925 of 2017 dt.22-07-2025 3/3

¶21

The Learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly seeks permission to challenge the order passed by the Collector prior to approaching the Civil Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The petitioner is always at liberty to pursue his remedies before the appropriate forum.

¶22

In view of the above discussion, the Writ petition is, hereby, disposed off.

¶23

Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶24

(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)

¶25

Manish/-

¶26

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	N/A
Uploading Date	23.07.2025
Transmission Date

Ajeet Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajeet Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Das Manjhi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ranjeet Paswan Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ramashish Sharma Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Murari Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Anil Kumar and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Runi Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.