Disposed

M/S Sandeep Trading Corporation v. Union of India

Rajasthan HC10 Jan 2020ARBAP/35/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Jaipur granted an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, appointing Justice Alok Sharma (Retired) as an independent arbitrator. The court held that a specific Railways' notification regarding arbitrator qualifications does not apply to Section 11 appointments made by the Court.

What did the court decide?

Justice Alok Sharma (Retired) was appointed as the arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute.

M/S Sandeep Trading Corporation Vs Union of India — Arbitration | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Arbitration Application No. 35/2019

¶3

M/s Sandeep Trading Corporation, Through Proprietor Sandeep Narayan Mathur S/o Shri S.n. Mathur, 109, Railway Housing Society, Mala Road, Kota Junction 324002

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Union Of India, Thruogh General Manager, West Central Railway, Jabalpur (M.p.)

¶7

Chief Commercial Manager, West Central Railway, Jabalpur (M.p.)

¶8

Divisional Railway Manager, West Central Railway Division, Kota.

¶9

Sr. Commercial Manager, West Central Railway, Kota.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajveer Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶13

Order

¶14

10/01/2020

¶15

This is an application moved by the Contractor seeking arbitration in terms of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1996”), by appointment of an arbitrator by this Court.

¶16

Admittedly, a dispute has arisen between the parties. In terms of the contract entered into the parties, Clause-16 provides for appointment of an arbitrator. Notice for appointment of arbitrator was sent to the respondents by the petitioner on 13.2.2019 and it is a case that the same was not relied and the respondents did not appoint the arbitrator.

¶17

[ARBAP-35/2019]

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

In the circumstances, present application under Section 11(6) of the Act of 1996 has been moved for appointment of the arbitrator.

¶20

Reply has been filed to the application. The existence of the arbitration agreement is not disputed. However, learned counsel submits that after new conditions laid down in the notification dated 16.11.2016 issued by Railways, the arbitrator ought to be appointed from the Retired Railways Officer(s).

¶21

In the opinion of this court, conditions under the aforesaid notification dated 16.11.2016 would be applicable to the Railways only and not to this Court under Section 11 of the Act of 1996. The petitioner had given a notice for appointment of arbitrator, but the Railways did not appoint the same. At the said stage, it is opined that the aforesaid conditions could have been invoked and the Railways could have appointed an arbitrator in terms of notification dated 16.11.2016, however, after an application is moved before this Court under Section 11 of the Act of 1996, the conditions, which govern the Railways, could not have been applied. Accordingly, this Court deems it fit and proper to appoint an independent arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute.

¶22

In the opinion of this Court, Justice Alok Sharma (Retired), K-39, Income Tax Colony, Durgapura, Jaipur, is appointed as an arbitrator to adjudicate and decide the dispute raised by the parties. Both the parties shall remain present before the arbitrator on the suitable date to be fixed by him. The fee of the arbitrator shall be governed by the Manual of 2009, as amended from time

¶23

[ARBAP-35/2019]

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

to time. The formal consent of Justice Alok Sharma (Retired) shall be taken for the said purpose.

¶26

The arbitration application is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶27

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶28

SUNIL SOLANKI /19/196

M/S Sandeep Trading Corporation v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sandeep Trading Corporation v. Union of India

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

Roop Narain Meena Vs State of Rajasthan through P.P.

Umar Mohammad S/O Shri Jabroo B/C Mev Vs State of Rajasthan

Purushottam and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Dr. Kanwardeep Randhawa D/O Late M.S. Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Kailash Ram Godara S/O Shri Ganesh Ram Godara Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S M D Constructions Vs M/S Laxmi Prime Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.