Allowed

Administrator v. Dau Dayal Gupta Son of Shri Babu Lal Gupta

Rajasthan HC26 May 2023WMAP/297/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil miscellaneous application, the High Court appointed a new sole arbitrator named Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahendra Kumar Maheshwari to adjudicate a dispute pending for 25 years following the death of the previous arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Costs were directed to be paid as per the 4th Schedule.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahendra Kumar Maheshwari as sole arbitrator; fees payable as per 4th Schedule of the Act.

Administrator Vs Dau Dayal Gupta Son of Shri Babu Lal Gupta — Arbitration | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/012203]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application No. 297/2022

¶4

Administrator, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Jaipur.

¶5

Executive Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Bharatpur.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Dau Dayal Gupta Son Of Shri Babu Lal Gupta, Government Contractor, Resident Of Choti Rajaria, Purani Deeg, Tehsil-Deeg, District Bharatpur.

¶9

Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Department, Bharatpur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Saurabh Jain with Mr.Tanay Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr.RK Paliwal for Mr.RA Katta

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

¶13

Order

¶14

26/05/2023

¶15

The present miscellaneous application has been filed by the applicant-respondent No.1 for appointment of new Arbitrator.

¶16

Learned counsel for the application-respondent No.1 submitted that initially this Court on 04^th February, 2015 had appointed Mr.GP Sharma, Retd. Chief Engineer, Public Works Department as Arbitrator.

¶17

Learned counsel submitted that the Arbitrator - Mr.GP Sharma, Retd. Chief Engineer, appointed by this Court, had rescued himself for conducting the arbitration proceedings.

¶18

Learned counsel submitted that the Miscellaneous Application No.97/2017 was filed before this Court and this Court, on 06^th

[2023/RJJP/012203]

[WMAP-297/2022]

(2 of 3)

November, 2017, appointed Mr.RK Mathur (Retd. District Judge) as a new Arbitrator.

¶23

Learned counsel submitted that during COVID-19, Mr.RK Mathur (Retd. District Judge) expired and as such, necessity has arisen to appoint new Arbitrator in place of Mr.RK Mathur (Retd. District Judge).

¶24

Learned counsel submitted that the controversy, involved in the present matter, relates to year 1998 and the same is pending for adjudication for almost 25 years.

¶25

Learned counsel further submitted that there is a financial hardship being faced by the applicant and as such, this Court may direct for appointment of a new Arbitrator and may also be requested to conclude the proceedings in an expeditious manner.

¶26

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that reply to the miscellaneous application has been filed.

¶27

Learned counsel submits that an objection was raised under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act of 1996”) in respect of appointment of earlier Arbitrator Mr.GP Sharma (Retd. Chief Engineer) and as such, if delay has been caused in the present matter, it is on account of substitution of Arbitrator by this Court and as such, it cannot be said that the respondent is responsible for delaying the arbitration proceedings.

¶28

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶29

This Court finds that on account of death of Mr.RK Mathur (Retd. District Judge), necessity has arisen to appoint another Arbitrator.

[2023/RJJP/012203]

[WMAP-297/2022]

(3 of 3)

This Court also finds that that the dispute between the parties is pending since last many years and as such, in order to resolve the dispute, new Arbitrator has to undertake the exercise.

¶34

This Court, accordingly, allows the present miscellaneous application filed by the applicant and while exercising the power conferred under Section 11 (5) read with Section 11(6) of the Act of 1996, appoints Hon’ble Mr.Justice Mahendra Kumar Maheshwari (Former Judge), V-108, Royal Orchid, Opp. Pink Pearl Water Park, Mahapura Road, Jaipur Amjer Express Way, Jaipur – 302026, as a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. The payment of cost of arbitration proceedings and arbitration fee shall be made as per the 4^th Schedule appended to the Act of 1996.

¶35

The intimation of appointment, as aforesaid, may be given by the counsel for the parties as well as by the Registry to Hon’ble Mr.Justice Mahendra Kumar Maheshwari (Former Judge), V-108, Royal Orchid, Opp. Pink Pearl Water Park, Mahapura Road, Jaipur Amjer Express Way, Jaipur – 302026.

¶36

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J

¶37

Preeti Asopa /10

Administrator v. Dau Dayal Gupta Son of Shri Babu Lal Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Administrator v. Dau Dayal Gupta Son of Shri Babu Lal Gupta

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

M/S Prl Projects and Infrastructure Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan through Chief Engineer (Nh) Public Works Department (P.W.D. )

M/S Prl Projects and Infrastruture Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan through Chief Engineer, (Nh)

Jaipur Centre Developers Private Limited Vs M/S Pace Tel Systems Pvt. Ltd.

Jaipur Centre Devlopers Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Siddhi Vinayak Colonizers

Anil Singhal S/O Shri Om Prakash Singhal Vs Vishal Bahl S/O Shri Nardeep Bahl

Taranjeet Singh Sahni S/O Pritpal Singh Sahni Vs Vijay Kumar Bhalodia S/O Laxman Bhai