Back
2020 Supreme(UK) 122
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ramesh Ranganathan, J.
Jaibeer Singh-birendra Singh And Sons. - Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand And Another - Respondent
MCC Restoration Aplication No. 1639 of 2018 Clma Delay Condonation Application No. 19692 of 2018 In Arbitration Application No. 4 of 2016
Decided On : 06-03-2020
Sri Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, for the Appellant; Sri J.C. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent, for the Respondent
The court has the jurisdiction to examine the existence of an arbitration agreement under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and may appoint an arbitrator based on the existence of the agreement and the agreement of the parties.
Headnote:
Arbitration Agreement - Appointment of Arbitrator - The court ordered the condonation of delay in filing the Restoration Application and restored the Arbitration Application to file. The court appointed an arbitrator based on the existence of an arbitration agreement admitted by the respondents. The same arbitrator appointed in a previous dispute between the parties was appointed to resolve the present case as well.
Fact of the Case:
The Application sought condonation of delay in filing the Restoration Application, which was not opposed by the State Government. The respondents admitted the existence of an arbitration agreement. The court appointed the same arbitrator who was appointed in a previous dispute between the parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in filing the Restoration Application was condoned, and the Arbitration Application was restored to file. The court appointed an arbitrator based on the existence of the admitted arbitration agreement and the agreement of both parties to appoint the same arbitrator as in a previous dispute.
Issues: Condonation of delay in filing the Restoration Application, existence of an arbitration agreement, appointment of an arbitrator.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is invoked to examine the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties. The court may appoint an arbitrator based on the existence of the arbitration agreement and the agreement of the parties.
Final Decision: The delay in filing the Restoration Application was condoned, and the Arbitration Application was restored to file. The court appointed the same arbitrator who was appointed in a previous dispute between the parties to resolve the present case.
JUDGMENT
Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. - The Application, seeking condonation of delay in filing the Restoration Application, is not opposed by Sri J.C. Pandey, learned Brief Holder for the State Government. The Application, seeking condonation of delay, is therefore ordered and the delay is condoned. The Restoration Application is ordered, and the Arbitration Application is restored to file.
2. This application is filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Act) seeking appointment of an arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement entered into between the parties.
3. The respondents have, in their counter-affidavit filed by them, admitted the existence of an arbitration agreement.
4. In view of Section 11(6-A) of the Act , the only question which this Court is required to examine, on its jurisdiction being invoked under Section 11 of the 1996 Act, is whether or not there is an arbitration agreement between the parties.
5. As the respondents admit the existence of an arbitration agreement, we see no reason not to grant the relief sought for in the application seeking appointment of an Arbitrator.
6. Both Sri Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri J.C. Pandey, learned Brief Holder for the State Government, agree that, in an earlier dispute between the very same parties, this Court had, in its order in Arbitration Application No. 5 of 2016 dated 05.04.2019, appointed Sri J.K. Pant, Retd. Chief Engineer, P.W.D., resident of 172, South Vanasthali, Mandir Lane, Ballupur, Dehradun as an Arbitrator.
7. As learned counsel on either side state that the very same Arbitrator be appointed to resolve the disputes in the present case also, I consider it appropriate to appoint Sri J.K. Pant, Retd. Chief Engineer, P.W.D., resident of 172, South Vanasthali, Mandir Lane, Ballupur, Dehradun as an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties.
8. The learned Arbitrator shall, in terms of Section 11(8) of the 1996 Act , furnish his disclosure in writing to this Court within 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. He shall, thereafter, fix his remuneration, and charges towards other expenses, in consultation with the parties to the dispute. He shall endeavour to complete the arbitral proceedings, and to pass an award with utmost expedition, preferably within six months from the date on which he enters upon a reference.
9. The Arbitration Application stands disposed of accordingly.
