Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hotel Mumbai House (A Unit Of ... vs State Government ... on 4 August, 2023
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2023:RJ-JD:24940] (1 of 4) [ARBAP-32/2020]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Arbitration Application No. 32/2020
Hotel Mumbai House (A Unit Of Taldar Hotels And Resort Pvt
Ltd), Through General Manager Sh. Gurusharan Singh S/o Sh.
Arjun Singh, Age 34 Years, Address - In Front Of Big Bazar, New
Fatehpura, Sukhadia Circle, Udaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Government, Rajasthan State Through District
Collector And President Of Disaster Management
Authority, Udaipur (Raj.)
2. Maharana Bhopal General Hospital, Through
Superintendent , Maharana Bhopal General Hospital,
Udaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lokesh Menaria
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Soni
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
04/08/2023
1. The instant arbitration application has been filed by the
petitioner under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 claiming the following reliefs :-
"It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that the present
application may kindly be allowed, and an Arbitrator may kindly
be appointed while exercising powers under Sec. 11 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Scheme of
Appointment of Arbitrators.
The following relief may be grant to the applicant company:
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 03:51:40 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:24940] (2 of 4) [ARBAP-32/2020]
A. Appoint an arbitrator for the purpose of solving dispute
between Applicant Company & Non-Applicant over the rates of
bills.
B. During the pendency of petition an interim amount may be
order to pay to the applicant company.
C. Any other further relief as may be deemed fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in favour of
the applicant."
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that an
independent arbitrator may be appointed, as a sole Arbitrator, to
resolve the dispute between the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn attention of
this Court towards the Section 66 of the Disaster Management
Act, 2005, relevant portion of which reads as under :-
"66. Payment of compensation.--
(ii) if as consequence of the requisition of the premises
the person interested is compelled to change his
residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses
(if any) incidental to such change:
Provided that where any person interested being
aggrieved by the amount of compensation so
determined makes an application within the thirty days
to the Central Government or the State Government, as
the case may be, for referring the matter to an
arbitrator, the amount of compensation to be paid shall
be such as the arbitrator appointed in this behalf by the
Central Government or the State Government, as the
case may be, may determine:
Provided further that where there is any dispute as to
the title to receive the compensation or as to the
apportionment of the amount of compensation, it shall
be referred by the Central Government or the State
Government, as the case may be, to an arbitrator
appointed in this behalf by the Central Government or
the State Government, as the case may be, for
determination, and shall be determined in accordance
with the decision of such arbitrator. Explanation.--In
this sub-section, the expression "person interested"
means the person who was in actual possession of the
premises requisitioned under section 65 immediately
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 03:51:40 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:24940] (3 of 4) [ARBAP-32/2020]
before the requisition, or where no person was in such
actual possession, the owner of such premises.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the
application under Section 66 of the Disaster Management Act,
2005 has not been submitted before the State Government, and
therefore, the arbitration ought not to be invoked at this stage;
however, the learned counsel for the respondent relies upon the
judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Nortel Networks India Pvt.
Ltd. reported in 2021 5 SCC 738. He further submits that the
as per Section 2S of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, the
"State Government" means "the Department of Government, who
has the administrative control of disaster management. . . . ",
which in the present case is the Secretary.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as
perusing the record of the case alongwith the judgment cited at
the Bar, this Court finds that so far as the prayer for referring the
dispute for arbitration is concerned, the provisions of Section 66 of
the Disaster Management Act, 2005 for payment of compensation,
are not applicable at this stage.
6. This Court further finds that the provisions of law pertaining
to the Act of 1996 and the Disaster Management Act, 2005,
relating to appointment of the Arbitrator, are required to be
invoked, and thus, while exercising the power conferred under
Section 11 of the Act of 1996, Mr. Himanshu Ray Nagori,
(Retd. District Judge) (Mob. No.7742697771) resident of 5
Swami Nagar, Oppsite Neelkanth Hospital, 100ft Road,
Bhuwana, Udaipur (Raj.), is appointed as the sole Arbitrator to
adjudicate the dispute between the parties. The payment of cost
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 03:51:40 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:24940] (4 of 4) [ARBAP-32/2020]
of arbitration proceedings and arbitration fee shall be made as per
the 4th Schedule appended to the Act of 1996.
7. The intimation of appointment, as aforesaid, may be given
by the counsel for the parties as well as by the Registry to Mr.
Himanshu Ray Nagori, (Retd. District Judge). The above
appointment is subject to necessary disclosure being made under
Section 12 of the Act of 1996.
8. The present application stands disposed of accordingly.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
234-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
