Orissa High Court
Ananta Multi Solution Pvt. Ltd vs Omshree Infratech Pvt. Ltd on 5 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ARBP No. 5 of 2022
Ananta Multi Solution Pvt. Ltd. .... Petitioner
Mr. S.S. Padhy, Advocate
-versus-
Omshree Infratech Pvt. Ltd. .... Opposite Party
Mr. Lalit Kumar Moharana, Advocate
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
ORDER
Order No. 05.08.2022
03. 1. The present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Act') seeks the appointment of an
Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the Petitioner and the
Opposite Party arising out of an agreement dated 7th December,
2020 for the purpose of carrying out the construction work.
2. There are two objections raised by the Opposite Party to the
appointment of an Arbitrator. The first objection is that the
arbitration clause is not binding on the parties because of its
wording. The clause of the agreement in question reads as under:
"23. Arbitration. In case of disputes arising
between the parties, the matter may be referred to
arbitration in pursuance to the provisions of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996"
3. Relying on the judgments in Jagdish Chander v. Ramesh
Chander (2007) 5 SCC 719 and Ramesh Chandra Samantaray v.
Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division 2014 (I) ILR CUT
1039 learned counsel for the Opposite Party contends that just as
in those decisions, the Court should decline to appoint an
Arbitrator on the basis of the above clause.
4. The Court finds that as far as Jagdish Chander v. Ramesh
Chander (supra) is concerned, the clause in question in that case
read as under:
"2. xx xx xx
(16) If during the continuance of the partnership or
at any time afterwards any dispute touching the
partnership arises between the partners, the same
shall be mutually decided by the partners or shall
be referred for arbitration if the parties so
determine."
5. In the present case, as already noticed the clause is very
different and the reference to arbitration is not made conditional on
the parties again having to agree separately for arbitration. As far
as Ramesh Chandra Samantaray (supra) is concerned, the
relevant clause read as under:
"25.1 In view of the provision of the Clause 24 on
Dispute Redressal System, it is the condition of the
Contract that there will be no arbitration for the
settlement of any dispute between the parties."
6. The above clause is again very different from the clause in the
present case, which is quite clear that the parties have agreed to
have their disputes settled by arbitration under the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996. Consequently, the Court negatives the first
objection.
7. The second objection is that the notice issued by the Petitioner
to the Opposite Party seeking the appointment of an Arbitrator is
actually a criminal complaint. Here again the Court is unable to
agree. The operative portion of the notice asks the Opposite Party
to agree to appoint an Arbitrator in terms of the above arbitration
clause in the agreement between them.
8. Consequently, the Court finds no merits in the objections of
learned counsel for the Opposite Party.
9. Without expressing any view on the merits of the respective
contentions of the parties, the Court appoints Shri Saurjya Kanta
Padhi, Senior Advocate as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the
disputes between the parties. The arbitration shall take place under
the aegis of the High Court of Orissa, Arbitration Centre.
10. The arbitration petition is disposed of accordingly. A copy of
this order be communicated to the learned Arbitrator forthwith.
11. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
S.K. Jena/Secy.
