Gujarat High Court
Changodar Metals Pvt. Ltd vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd on 8 December, 2023
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/ARBI.P/3/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/PETN. UNDER ARBITRATION ACT NO. 3 of 2023
==========================================================
CHANGODAR METALS PVT. LTD.
Versus
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RATILAL V SAKARIA(6613) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS TWINKLE S MALAKIYA(12285) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR AJAY R MEHTA(453) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
Date : 08/12/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner herein seeks appointment of an Arbitrator
to determine the dispute raised with regard to determination of
the payment under the Fire Insurance Policy.
2. There is no dispute about the liability of the Insurance
Company. The dispute is pertaining to quantum as raised by the
petitioner at the time of receipt of the discharge voucher dated
20.04.2020. A perusal of the discharge voucher (at page 55 of
the paper-book) indicates that at the time of receipt of payment,
the petitioner has made a note that he submitted to the voucher
under extreme duress and reservation.
3. Having noted the contents of the discharge voucher at
page 55 of the paper-book this Court finds that the reliance
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/ARBI.P/3/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2023
undefined
place on the judgment and order of this Court dated
10.06.2022 in Arbitration Petition No. 66 of 2020 titled as
Balkrishna Spintex Private Limited versus The New India
Assurance Company Ltd., is of no benefit to the respondent,
inasmuch as, in the said case, the discharge voucher was signed
by the claimant without any protest or demur.
4. As regard the contention that the dispute had been raised
after a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of payment,
suffice it to say that the petitioner was agitating the dispute at
the time of repudiation of claim and by writing a letter through
e-mail on 07.07.2020, which is appended at page 56 of the
paper-book.
5. It may not be forgotten that the period during which the
payment was received by the petitioner in the month of April,
2022 was the period when the entire country was affected by
the unprecedented situation of Covid-19 virus.
6. Taking note of the above, this Court is of the considered
view that the matter is to be referred to the arbitration as the
dispute is arbitratable in nature. As the parties have not been
able to reach at an agreement for reference of the disputes to
the Arbitrator, however, they have reached at the consensus at
the name of the Arbitrator in the end as suggested by the
parties.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/ARBI.P/3/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2023
undefined
7. Hence, I proceed to pass following :
ORDER
(i) Petition is allowed.
(ii) Dr. Jyotsana Yagnik, Retired Principal Judge,
City Civil Court, residing at : A/2/3, Chinaibaug Flat,
C.G. Road, Ahmedabad, is hereby appointed as sole
Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties in
accordance with the Arbitration Centre (Domestic and
International), High Court of Gujarat Rules, 2021. Both
parties would also be governed by said Rules.
(iii) Registry is directed to communicate this order
to the sole arbitrator forthwith by speed post.
(iv) Pending application/s, if any, stands consigned
to records. No order as to costs.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
AMAR SINGH
