Tuesday, 12, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Global Vectra Helicorp Ltd vs Flying Training Institute (Fti)
2024 Latest Caselaw 2660 Cal/2

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 2660 Cal/2
Judgement Date : 21 August, 2024

Calcutta High Court

Global Vectra Helicorp Ltd vs Flying Training Institute (Fti) on 21 August, 2024

Author: Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya

Bench: Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya

OCD-10

                        IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                         Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
                                  ORIGINAL SIDE
                               (Commercial Division)


                              AP-COM/627/2024
                        GLOBAL VECTRA HELICORP LTD.
                                      VS
                        FLYING TRAINING INSTITUTE (FTI)


BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA
Date : 21st August, 2024

                                                                          Appearance:
                                                              Mr. Sayan Dutta, Adv.
                                                        Ms. Reshma Chatterjee, Adv.
                                                           Ms. Tanushree Bag, Adv.
                                                               Mr. S. Ganguly, Adv.
                                                                . . .for the petitioner.

                                                           Ms. Noelle Banerjee, Adv.
                                                           Mr. Ritoban Sarkar, Adv.
                                                          Mr. Arindam Mandal, Adv.
                                                         Mr. Shourya Samanta, Adv.
                                                              . . .for the respondent.

The Court : Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the

disputes now sought to be raised by the petitioner come within the purview of

Clause 14 of the agreement for hiring-in of a twin engine air conditioned

helicopter on wet lease between the parties.

Learned counsel for the respondent, at the outset, takes three objections

to the maintainability of the present application.

First, the application has been captioned as one under Section 11(2) of

the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, which does not contemplate any

appointment of Arbitrator by the Court as such.

Secondly, in terms of the relevant arbitration clause, that is, Clause

14.1, the reference to arbitration has mandatorily to be preceded by an attempt

at amicable settlement through consultation/discussion between the parties,

which has not been done in the present case.

Learned counsel cites an unreported judgment of a co-ordinate Bench in

the matter of SP Singla Constructions Private Limited versus Government of West

Bengal where the learned Single Judge observed that unless the stages

contained in the arbitration clause which are to be undergone prior to

arbitration are exhausted, there cannot be any appointment of Arbitrator

under Section 11.

Thirdly, learned counsel for the respondent contends that the Proviso to

Section 12(5) stipulates that the parties may, subsequent to disputes having

arisen between them, waive the applicability of Sub-section(5) by an express

agreement in writing. Thus, the Proviso carves out an exception to Sub-

section(5) of Section 12, which stipulates that any person whose relationship

with the parties or counsel for the subject-matter of the dispute falls under any

of the categories specified in the Seventh Schedule shall be ineligible to be

appointed as an Arbitrator. In view of the express waiver by the petitioner of

the said rigour, there is no bar to the Secretary, Law Department, Government

of West Bengal (the Arbitrator named by designation) acting as the Arbitrator in

terms of the arbitration clause. In support of the contention that for

satisfaction of the Proviso, no formal legal document need be entered into,

learned counsel cites a Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court

reported at 2021 SCC Online Mad 2892.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, seeks liberty to amend the

caption of the cause-title to the present application to incorporate the

appropriate Sub-section of Section 11.

Secondly, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on documents annexed

to the present petition, particularly from pages 36 to 44 thereof, to argue that

sufficient attempts were made by the petitioner to amicably settle the dispute

by a process of discussion. Only after the same failed, the present application

has been filed.

With regard to the last objection, it is submitted that the statement made

in the e-mail sent by the communication made by the petitioner on September

7, 2023 does not per se comprise of an express waiver of Sub-section (5) of

Section 12.

At the outset, it may be recorded that the first objection taken by the

respondent is turned down, being hyper-technical, by granting liberty to the

learned advocate-on-record for the petitioner to carry out the necessary

amendment to the cause-title of the present application by incorporating the

appropriate Sub-section of Section 11.

Such amendment shall be carried out during the course of the day.

Insofar as the second objection is concerned, the same is also turned

down, since the correspondence extensively made by the petitioner and

between the parties prior to resorting to Section 11 are sufficient to indicate

that the pre-requirement of attempt to amicably settle the dispute through

consultation/discussion has sufficiently been complied with by the petitioner.

However, insofar as the last objection is concerned, the same cannot but

be upheld.

In its communication to the respondent dated September 7, 2023, the

petitioner categorically mentioned that in case the issue remained unresolved,

the petitioner would like to go into arbitration and take the case up with the

Secretary, Law Department, Government of West Bengal for an amicable

solution. More importantly, in the next sentence of paragraph no.8 of the said

communication, the petitioner wrote that the Secretary, Law Department,

Government of West Bengal as per Clause 14 of the signed agreement shall act

as the sole Arbitrator.

In view of such categorical statement, it is evident that the petitioner

expressly waived the applicability of Section 12(5) of the 1996 Act in writing

and, as such, is required to go before the Arbitrator named by designation in

the arbitration clause, that is, the Secretary, Law Department, Government of

West Bengal for the purpose of resolving the dispute between the parties.

Accordingly, AP-COM/627/2024 is dismissed in the light of the above

observations, by granting liberty to the petitioner to refer the dispute between

the parties to the Secretary, Law Department, Government of West Bengal in

terms of Clause 14 of the agreement between the parties for the purpose of

resolution of the dispute by the process of arbitration.

No order as to costs.

Needless to say, none of the above observations have touched the merits

of the disputes between the parties.

Urgent certified website copies of this order be supplied to the parties

upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

(SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.)

s.pal

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter