Calcutta High CourtM/S. U. Con vs Union Of India on 26 July, 2016Author:Soumen SenBench:Soumen SenAP No.409 of 2016

                        IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                    Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
                                ORIGINAL SIDE


                                       M/S. U. CON

                                        -Versus-

                                       UNION OF INDIA
                                                                         Appearance:
                                                               Mr. Surajit Sen, Adv.
                                                               Mr. Tapas Sinha, Adv.
                                                              ...for the petitioner.

                                                        Mr. Arun Kumar Mishra, Adv.
                                                             ...for the respondent.BEFORE:The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN

      Date : 26th July, 2016.The   Court   :   There   is   no    dispute    either   as     to    the

existence of arbitration agreement or that the dispute has arisen

out    of   the   said   arbitration    agreement    and     are   required    to    be

decided and resolved through arbitration.             The parties were not in

dispute that the disputes were covered by the arbitration clause

and an Arbitrator is required to be appointed to decide the issues

raised by the petitioner.It is not in dispute that the petitioner has raised

certain disputes and a notice for appointment of Arbitrator was

sent to the respondents on 12th August, 2015.                      The appointing

authority, however, has failed to appoint an Arbitrator within a

period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the said request.2The appointing authority appears to have sat over the

notice underSection 21of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

1996 for a period of more than the judiciary recognized outer

limit of 30 days.In view of the failure to appoint an Arbitrator, the

present request has been made for appointment of an Arbitrator

underSection 11of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.The   petitioner   says    that   upon    the     failure   of   the

appointing authority to respond to the notice invoking arbitration

agreement    or   appointing   an     Arbitrator     within    the   judicially

recognized period of 30 days, such authority has forfeited its

right to make any appointment and the Hon'ble Chief Justice and/or

her designate can only appoint an Arbitrator.In view of the failure to appoint an Arbitrator within

the judicially recognized period of 30 days, a valuable right has

accrued in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner is entitled

to carry such a request to the Chief Justice of this Court or her

designate.Accordingly, Justice Tapan Kumar Dutt, a retired Judge

of this Court is appointed as an Arbitrator at a consolidated

remuneration in accordance with theFourth Schedule to the Amended

Actof 1996 to be shared by the parties in equal measure at the

first instance subject to the direction as to costs as may be

contained in the final award.3The arbitrator is requested to conclude the reference

within a period of eight months of the statement of claim being

lodged before him.A.P.No.409 of 2016 is, accordingly, disposed of.    There

shall be no order as to costs.(SOUMEN SEN, J.)

A/s.