Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
_A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
ARB P No.06 of 2022
Sri Santosh Saha ........Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura & others ........Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suman Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Bhattacharya, G.A.,
Mr. Anujit Dey, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY
_O_ R_ D_ E_ R_
16/09/2022
Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. This is an application filed by the petitioner under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an arbitrator.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Mr. B.P Das, Superintending Engineer, PWD (R&B) had been appointed as an arbitrator and passed a nil award dated 02.01.2014. Challenging the said order, the petitioner had moved the Court of the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Misc.(ARB) No.02 of 2014 dated 01.03.2019 whereby the nil award passed by the arbitrator was set aside. It may be pertinent to mention herein that the original arbitration award proceeded to nil award on the ground of limitation. This order was set aside by the learned District Judge in the aforementioned case. Learned counsel for Page 2 of 3 the petitioner further submits that the said arbitrator, namely, Shri B.P Das at the time when the award was passed, was working as Superintending Engineer under the State Government and therefore he submits that in view of the amendment made to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act the said arbitrator has lost his mandate and cannot be permitted to continue and a fresh arbitrator needs to be appointed. For this purpose, he placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ellora paper Mills Limited versus State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2022) 3 SCC 1.
Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State on the other hand opposed the prayer made by the petitioner inter alia contending that 34 applications of the petitioner came to be allowed by the District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala on 01.03.2019 and therefore there has been substantial delay in filing the present application for appointment of an arbitrator.
In response to the contention advanced by the learned Government Advocate, counsel for the petitioner submits that after the order was passed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the learned District Judge, West Tripura, they appeared before the Chief Engineer (appointing authority) for appointment of an alternative arbitrator over the matter but there was no response to the same. Hence, necessarily filing of the present petition. Page 3 of 3
Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court is of the considered view that the disputes raised by the petitioner before the arbitrator remain to be adjudicated by the arbitrator. The so called appointing authority i.e. Chief Engineer in view of the amendment made to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot act as an appointee and has lost his mandate. However, it is also pertinent to mention herein that the State has not preferred any challenge to the order passed by the District Judge referred hereinabove. Consequently, this Court appoints retired Hon'ble Justice Mr. S.C Das to act as an arbitrator and proceed with the matter, in accordance with law.
Accordingly, petition is disposed of.
(INDRAJIT MAHANTY), CJ Dipesh