Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Serampore Multipurpose Samabaya ... vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited & ... on 16 April, 2021
16.04.2021
Item no.21
CP
C.O. 1377 of 2020
Serampore Multipurpose Samabaya Samity Limited.
vs.
Indian Oil Corporation Limited & anr.
(via video conference)
Mr. S. N. Dutta
.....for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Kumar Nag
...for the opposite parties.
This revisional application has been field
challenging an order dated August 12, 2020 passed
by the learned arbitrator. The allegation is that the
mandate did not stand terminated and the learned
Arbitrator ought to have taken cognizance of the
application filed by the petitioner dated July 27,
2020.
It is the contention of the petitioner that the
learned arbitrator by an e-mail dated September 15,
2020 communicated the order impugned. The
learned Arbitrator came to the conclusion that as the
mandate had terminated, no further application, or
communication or documents should be filed by the
petitioner.
The learned advocate for the petitioner has
relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court directed that
mandates would not terminate during the pandemic
period of any arbitration proceeding for reasons
contained in the said judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court. The petitioner filed an application annexing
the copy of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court
before the learned arbitrator in support of his
contention that the mandate had not terminated.
Moreover, it is submitted that the sur-rejoinder had
been filed on October 1, 2019 and, as such, even if
the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court had not been
considered, the mandate would not terminate as the
pleadings were only complete on October 1, 2019.
Learned advocate for the opposite parties
submits that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 being a complete code in itself, takes care of
such a situation. The remedy of the petitioner would
be to file an appropriate application before the
principal civil court under Section 14(2) or Section
29(A)(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Although, prima facie, the petitioner has made
out an arguable case on merits as to termination of
the mandate, but this court shall not invoke the
superintending power in view of the specific
provisions under the relevant statute. The remedy of
the petitioner lies elsewhere.
The petitioner is directed to file an appropriate
application before the appropriate forum ventilating
his grievances upon service of an advance copy upon
the opposite parties. Such application to be filed
within a period of one month. The written objection
to the said application will be filed within 10 days
thereafter and the learned principal civil court before
whom such application shall be filed will dispose of
the same on merits and in accordance with law
within a period of one month from completion of the
pleadings.
The revisional application is disposed of. There
shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as
possible subject to compliance of all usual
formalities.
(Shampa Sarkar, J.)
