SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Cal) 234

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
KRISHNA RAO, J.
Bharat Vanijya Eastern Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal - Respondent
IA. No. GA 8 of 2020 (Old No. GA 683 of 2020) in CS. No. 81 of 2002
Decided On : 17-03-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:Anindya Kumar Mitra, Sr. Advocate, Dhruba Ghosh, Reetobroto Mitra, Sarajit Mitra, Altamash Alim, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Tilak Kr. Bose, Sr. Advocate, Paritosh Sinha, Anupam Das Adhikari, Ratul Das, Sounak Banerjee, Arindam Mondal, Subhabrata Datta, Debashis Sarkar, Paritosh Sinha, Advocates.

The intention of the parties to settle the matter through arbitration precluded the revival of the suit, and the application for appointment of a new arbitrator was dismissed as it was misconceived and not maintainable.

Headnote:

Arbitration - Appointment of New Arbitrator - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 89 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 34 - Award Set Aside - Dispute Resolution Mechanism Failure

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a Civil Suit against the respondent and later agreed to refer the dispute to arbitration under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appointed arbitrator passed an award, which was set aside by the Hon’ble Division Bench. The petitioner sought appointment of a new arbitrator or revival of the suit.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the suit could not be revived as the intention of the parties was to settle the matter through arbitration. The application for appointment of a new arbitrator was dismissed as it was misconceived and not maintainable.

Issues: The issues involved the appointment of a new arbitrator and the revival of the suit after the previous award was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit could not be revived as the intention of the parties was to settle the matter through arbitration. The application for appointment of a new arbitrator was dismissed as it was misconceived and not maintainable.

Final Decision: The application for appointment of a new arbitrator was dismissed, but the petitioner was not precluded from taking appropriate steps for appointment of an arbitrator in accordance with the law.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has filed the instant application for appointment of new Arbitrator to proceed with the arbitration proceeding from the stage, it was left by the previous arbitrator and to make and publish an Award within six months or in the alternative the suit be reviewed and be transferred to Commercial Division of this Court and to proceed with from the stage suit was left at the time of passing of the order dt. 11th September, 2008.

Initially the petitioner had filed a Civil Suit No. 81 of 2002 against the respondent praying for following reliefs :

    “a) Leave under order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908;

    b) Decree for Rs. 20,72,36,568/-

    c) Alternatively, an enquiry into the damages suffered by the plaintiff and decree for the amount found on such enquiry

    d) Interest;

    e) Costs;

    f) Further and other reliefs;.”

      During pendency of the suit, the Learned Advocate for the petitioner had forwarded a letter together with a draft application under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for referring the dispute pertaining to the suit before the Learned Arbitrator to the Learned Advocate for the respondent on 28th July, 2008. In reply to the abovementioned letter, the Chief Engineer (NH), Government of West Bengal, Public Works (Roads) Directorate, Audit Branch vide his Memo No. 1C-2007/645-R/ADT dt. 26th August, 2008 had forwarded approval for appointment of Arbitrator to the Learned Advocate for the respondent and the Learned Advocate for the respondent had forwarded the same to the Learned Counsel for the petitioner with the request to move the said application after notice to the respondent. After approval of the proposal for appointment of Arbitrator, the petitioner has filed an application in C.S. No. 81of 2008 being G.A. No. 3037 of 2008 and on 11th September, 2008, this Court had passed the following order :

        “The Court: The parties are agreed that the entire subject matter of the present suit including the issues as framed by this Court be referred to arbitration and that Justice Baboolal Jain (Retired) be appointed as Arbitrator.

        In view of such agreement, this application made under Section 89 of the Code, of Civil Procedure, 1908 is disposed of. There will be an order in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (c) by agreement of parties.

        GA No.3037 of 2008 is disposed of and the suit being CS No. 81 of 2002 should also be treated as disposed of.”

      In terms of order dt. 11th September, 2008, the Learned Arbitrator had initiated Arbitration proceedings and on 26th August, 2011 had published an Award. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Award, the respondent had preferred an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before this Court being AP No. 1087 of 2011 for setting aside the Award dt. 26th August, 2011. By a judgment dt. 4th January, 2017, this Court had set aside the Award with respect of the claim nos. 2, 4, 9 and 10 and the application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 was allowed in part.

      Both petitioner as well as the respondent have preferred an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the Judgment dt 28th August, 2011 before the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court being APO No. 398 of 2017 (State of West Bengal & Ors. -versus- Bharat Vanijya Eastern Private Limited) and APO No. 419 of 2017 (Bharat Vanijya Eastern Private Limited -versus- The State of West Bengal). The Hon’ble Division Bench had disposed of the said appeals on 7th November, 2019 by passing the following order :

        “44. Clearly, the arbitral award in this case falls well short of what was required of it by the governing statute as and by way of reasons. The bases of the claims under the individual heads are not alluded to in any discussion, whether as to the issues or as to the heads of claim. In a few cases the subjective satisfa

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top