Jharkhand High Court
M/S Arss Infrastructure Projects ... vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd. And ... on 9 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Arbitration Application No.07 of 2019
M/S ARSS Infrastructure Projects Ltd. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors. ...... Respondents
WITH
Arbitration Application No.08 of 2019
M/S ARSS Infrastructure Projects Ltd. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors. ...... Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sidhant Dwibedi, Advocate
For the Resp.-SAIL : Mr. Vijay Kant Dubey, Advocate
For the Resp.-SCOPE : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate
----------------------------
15/Dated 09th February, 2022
The matter has been taken up through video conferencing.
Mr. Sidhant Dwibedi, learned counsel petitioners has submitted that
it is a fit case where the power conferred under Section 11(6) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is to be invoked by appointing the sole
arbitrator.
Such submission has been made on the basis of the fact that as per
the terms of agreement which provides a clause for settlement of disputes, the
petitioners have invoked the process of amicable settlement but the same has
not been responded by the SAIL/BSL which prompted the petitioners to
approach before the SCOPE as per the terms of agreement for appointment of
sole arbitrator.
The SCOPE has acted on such request and asked the parties, i.e., the
petitioners and the SAIL/BSL to deposit the requisite fees. The petitioners
have deposited the amount of its own share on 31.01.2019 but the same was
credited in the account of the SCOPE on 02.02.2019. However, the SAIL/BSL
had not complied with such direction for deposit of the required amount.
Subsequently, the said amount was deposited on 06.05.2019 and it is only
then, the SCOPE had issued a communication on 27.05.2019 suggesting five
names to be appointed, with the consent of the parties, as sole arbitrator.
In the meanwhile, when the SCOPE has not acted by not appointing
the arbitrator fairly for a long period, then an application under Section 11(6)
of the Act, 1996 has been filed on 17.05.2019 which was prior to the
suggestion of names of the sole arbitrator contained in the communication
dated 27.05.2019 and therefore, the arbitrator is to be appointed by this Court
in exercise of power conferred under Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996.
He, in support of his argument, has relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Datar Switchgears Ltd. vs. Tata Finance
Ltd. and Anr., (2000) 8 SCC 151.
Mr. Vijay Kant Dubey, learned counsel respondent-SAIL/BSL has
sought for time to go through the said judgment.
Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, learned counsel for the SCOPE has submitted
that the name of five persons, who are to be appointed as sole arbitrator
depending upon the common choice of the parties, has already been
communicated to the concerned parties well on 27.05.2019 but as yet no such
consent has been received by the SCOPE.
Mr. Sah, further submits that the moment such consent will be
communicated to the SCOPE, appropriate decision will be taken in
accordance with the terms of the agreement.
As prayed for by Mr. Vijay Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for
the respondent-SAIL/BSL, let this matter be listed on 24.02.2022.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
Saurabh
