M/S Siyaram City Cabs Ltd vs Airport Authority Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 138 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                             BENCH AT JAIPUR


            S.B. Arbitration Application No. 58/2018

M/s Siyaram City Cabs Ltd, Having Its Registered Office At

Siyaram Street Tonk Road, Durgapura Jaipur 302018 (Rajasthan)

Through Its Authorised Signatory Mr. Jaswant Singh Shekhawat.
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
Airport Authority Of India, Civil Airport Jaipur Through Its
Director.
                                                                     ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naresh Kumar Sejvani, through VC For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sukriti Kasliwal, through VC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Judgment / Order

06/01/2022

1. Applicant has preferred this Arbitration Application seeking

for appointment of an arbitrator.

2. It is contended by counsel for the applicant that as per the

Clause 20 of the Arbitration Clause of the license agreement,

applicant had referred the dispute to the Dispute Resolution

Committee. The Dispute Resolution Committee did not resolve the

dispute within 45 days of reference. It is also contended that

initially the letter was written on 03.07.2017, thereafter, a

registered letter was sent on 05.09.2017. It is for the first time

that the authorities vide letter dated 23.11.2017 informed the

applicant that they have constituted a Dispute Resolution

Committee and that the first meeting of the Dispute Resolution

Committee would be scheduled in December, 2017. It is

(2 of 4) [ARBAP-58/2018]

contended that the dispute was not resolved by the Dispute

Resolution Committee within prescribed time and the applicant is

entitled to have an arbitrator appointed to settle the dispute

between the parties in terms of the Arbitration Clause.

3. Counsel appearing for the non-applicant contends that the

Dispute Resolution Committee was constituted and the applicant

was informed to appear before the Dispute Resolution Committee

but he did not submit any dispute before Dispute Resolution

Committee. It is contended that the non-applicant is still willing to

hear the applicant with regard to his dispute and the Dispute

Resolution Committee can still try to resolve the dispute. It is also

contended that the applicant himself had expressed his

unavailability to appear before the Dispute Resolution Committee

vide letter dated 18.06.2018. The applicant never submitted his

dispute to the Dispute Resolution Committee.

4. I have considered the contentions and perused the

arbitration clause.

5. As per the arbitration clause in the first instance, the dispute

shall be referred to a Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC) setup

at the airports, for which a written application should be obtained

for the party and the points clearly spelt out. In case the dispute

is not resolved within 45 days of reference, then the case shall be

referred to the sole arbitration of a person to be appointed by the

Chairman/Member of the Authority.

6. Admittedly, vide letter dated 03.07.2017, the applicant

raised all dispute and requested the authorities to proceed in

accordance with the Clause 20 of the Agreement and sent the

matter before the Dispute Resolution Committee so that the

claimant could present his claim before the Dispute Resolution

(3 of 4) [ARBAP-58/2018]

Committee for adjudication. Thereafter, vide registered legal

notice dated 05.09.2017 which was received by the authorities on

07.09.2017, the applicant informed the authorities that they have

not resolved the dispute and the matter has not been referred to

the Dispute Resolution Committee. It is after this legal notice that

for the first time the non-applicant vide letter dated 23.11.2017

informed the applicant that they have constituted a Dispute

Resolution Committee. The letter for appointing and sending the

dispute to Dispute Resolution Committee was initially given by the

applicant on 03.07.2017, the registered legal notice was

thereafter given on 05.09.2017 and within 45 days even Dispute

Resolution Committee was not constituted. It is for the first time

that the vide letter dated 23.11.2017 that information was sent to

the applicant about the constituting of the Dispute Resolution

Committee.

7. I am of the considered view, since the Dispute Resolution

Committee is not constituted within prescribed time under the

Arbitration Clause and the dispute is not resolved within 45 days,

the applicant is entitled to have an arbitrator appointed by the

Court, hence, I deem it proper to allow the Arbitration Application.

8. This Court appoints Mr. Ravi Kiran Mathur (Sr. Adv.) 63 Gopal

Nagar-A, Gopalpura By Pass, Jaipur as an Arbitrator to decide the

dispute.

9. Registry is directed to intimate Mr. Ravi Kiran Mathur (Sr.

Adv.) and obtain his formal consent.

10. Accordingly, Arbitration Application stands allowed. The

arbitrator shall be entitled to lay down fees as provided under

Manual of Procedure for Alternative Disputes Resolution, 2009 as

(4 of 4) [ARBAP-58/2018]

amended from time to time. Formal consent shall be obtained

from Mr. Ravi Kiran Mathur (Sr. Adv.)

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

Nikhil Kr. Yadav / 3

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)