M/S Fabro Forge vs Union Of India Through Chief ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4820 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

             S.B. Arbitration Application No. 158/2021

M/s Fabro Forge, Having Its Office At 56, Metcalf Street, 4 Th
Floor, Room No. 4H, Kolkata 700013, Through Its Duly
Authorized Representative- Mr. Subhash Kumar Kedia.
                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
Union Of India Through Chief Engineer/tp, North Western
Railway, Jaipur.
                                                                ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)        :     Ms Sukriti Kasliwal
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Anand Sharma



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

                                    Order

14/07/2022

1. This Arbitration Application has been filed under Section 11

of Arbitration and Conciliation Act for appointment of arbitrator.

2. It is contended by counsel for the applicant that an

agreement was entered into between the applicant and non-

applicant. A sanction order has been passed in favour of the

applicant and clause 2900 of the General Conditions of contract

was an arbitration clause. The dispute took place upon which the

applicant served notice upon the non-applicant on 20.08.2021, in

reply to which, non-applicant has suggested four names for being

appointed as arbitrator. It is also contended by counsel for the

applicant that names suggested were retired employees.

3. In view of judgment of Perkins Eastman Architects DPC

& Anr. Vs HSCC(India) Ltd. 2019 SCC Online SC 1517, the

Apex Court has held that an interested party cannot act as an

arbitrator and can also not appoint an arbitrator.

(2 of 2) [ARBAP-158/2021]

4. Counsel for the non-applicant has contended that there was

a clause of reconciliation and the applicant did not approach the

non-applicant for reconciliation rather they have directly moved an

application for appointment of an arbitrator.

5. I have considered the contentions.

6. Admittedly, there in an arbitration clause and the applicant

has given notice for appointment of an arbitrator. Non-applicant

has also acceded to the request and they have suggested the

names of four persons who happen to be retired employees of the

non-applicant. In view of judgment of Perkins Eastman

Architects DPC & Anr. Vs HSCC(India) Ltd.(supra) this Court

deems it proper to allow the arbitration application.

7. Accordingly, the arbitration application stands allowed.

8. This Court appoints Mr. G.S. Sarraf, E-45, Siddharth Nagar,

Sectorr-13 Malviya Nagar, as an Arbitrator to decide the dispute.

9. The appointment of the sole arbitrator is subject to the

declarations being made under Section 12 of the Arbitration &

Conciliation Act, 1996 with respect to independence and

impartiality, and the ability to devote sufficient time to complete

the arbitration within the prescribed period.

10. The Arbitrator shall be entitled to lay down fees as provided

under Manual of Procedure for Alternative Disputes Resolution,

2009 as amended from time to time.

11. Registry is directed to intimate Mr. G.S. Sarraf, E-45,

Siddharth Nagar, Sectorr-13 Malviya Nagar, and obtain his formal

consent.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

HEENA/15

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)