Jharkhand High Court
M/S Uranium Corporation Of India ... vs M/S Aaban Enterprises on 30 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 16 of 2021
------
M/s Uranium Corporation of India Limited, having its registered office at Jadugoda
Mines, East Singhbhum .... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
M/s Aaban Enterprises, Maheshwari Enterprises and Ambika Enterprises, Raniganj,
West Bengal .... .... .... Opposite Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sudarshan Srivastava, Advocate
Mr. M.B. Lal, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate
Oral Order
06/ Dated :30.11.2022
1. The instant civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing the
order dated 6th December 2019 passed by Commercial Court, Ranchi in Commercial
Revocation case No.11 of 2019, whereby the application filed by respondent under
Sections 12, 13 and 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been
allowed and the mandate of sole Arbitrator has been terminated.
2. In pursuance of tender invited by Uranium Corporation of India Ltd.
(UCIL), the present respondent participated in the tender process and work was
allotted by order dated 08.09.2006.
3. On 11.04.2019, the Deputy General Manager (Mines) UCIL, invoked the
arbitral Clause after issuing the letter of termination on 04.07.2017.
4. The Chairman and Managing Director, UCIL appointed Mr. P.K. Singh as
sole Arbitrator in terms of Clause 46.2 which authorise the Chairman-cum-
Managing Director to nominate any other person as the sole Arbitrator for
determination of dispute between the parties. Mr. P.K. Singh through his letter dated
05.05.2019 gave his consent to act as sole Arbitrator and intimated the parties with
regard to commencement of arbitral proceeding on 25.05.2019. The petitioner
appeared on that day and filed a petition under Section 12 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 for termination of the mandate of the Arbitrator on the
following grounds:-
a. the sole Arbitrator was an interested party because he was working with MECON
and UCIL had appointed MECON to handle their tendering process.
b. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director UCIL being ineligible could not have
appointed and nominated any other person to be the sole Arbitrator.
5. The learned Court below terminated the order of appointment of Arbitrator
mainly on the ground that Chairman-cum-Managing Director being an interested
person who had an interest in the outcome of decision of the dispute should not have
appointed as sole Arbitrator. Reliance has been placed by Trial Court on Bharat
Broadband Network Limited Versus United Telecoms Limited reported in (2019) 5
SCC 755 and TRF Ltd. Vs. Energo Engineering Projects Limited reported in
(2017) 8 SCC 377.
6. The appointment has been terminated by the learned Court below solely on
the ground that he was appointee of the Managing Director and therefore, there were
justifiable doubts to his independence and impartiality.
7. From the impugned order, it is apparent that the order of the Commercial
Court terminating the appointment of Arbitrator is a final order in that case, as
nothing survives for further adjudication in the learned Court below.
8. It is a settled proposition of law that where an efficacious remedy is
available, the petition under Article 227 will ordinarily not lie under Section 13 of
the Commercial Court Act, any person aggrieved of the judgment/order of the
Commercial Court, may appeal to the Commercial Appellate Court within a period
of 60 days from the date of such judgment/order.
9. In view of the fact that impugned order is a final order of the Commercial
Court, this Court is of the view that it is an appellate order and shall not be amenable
to writ jurisdiction.
10. Under the circumstance, the instant civil miscellaneous petition is
dismissed as not maintainable.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Anit
