In Paul Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Statistical Institute, Calcutta High Court appointed a sole arbitrator in the present matter. It allowed the petition under Section 11 (6) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
In the present application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner made a prayer for the appointment of a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising between the parties relating to the agreement dated 16-05-2013 (from now on referred to as “the said contract”) entered into between the parties herein. By the said contract, the respondent inducted the petitioner as the contractor to carry out development work of surrounding areas of Platinum Jubilee Building, terms and conditions of which were specified in the contract. Clause 8 of the said contract contemplated that all disputes arising between the parties shall be referred to the sole arbitrator appointed by the Director, Indian Statistical Institute.
It is the petitioner's case that since the respondent wrongfully reclaimed its various claims, disputes have arisen, which are required to be adjudicated through arbitration. Accordingly, dated 9-06-2017, the petitioner invoked the arbitration agreement and requested the respondent to refer the dispute to arbitration by considering provisions in Section 12(5), read with a fifth and seventh schedule to the Act of 1996. However, the respondent, by their letter dated 12-07-2017, sought to refer to certain disputes which had arisen between the parties relating to another contract for construction of the said building. By further letter dated 16-07-2018, the petitioner addressed to the respondent for appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties relating to the contract with no response from the respondents. Thus, the petitioner has filed the present application praying for relief mentioned above.
The court observed, “Because of the incorporation of the provisions of subsection (5) of Section 12 and the fifth and seventh schedule to the Act of 1996 and the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Voestalpine Schienen Gmbh v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited, (2017) 4 SCC 665 and TRF Limited v. Energo Engineering, (2017)8 SCC 377, the Director of the respondent cannot appoint an Arbitrator.” Further, allowing the present petition, Court-appointed former judge, Mr. Sahidullah Munshi as the sole arbitrator in the present matter
 2021 SCC OnLine Cal 21.
This Article Does Not Intend To Hurt The Sentiments Of Any Individual Community, Sect, Or Religion Etcetera. This Article Is Based Purely On The Authors Personal Views And Opinions In The Exercise Of The Fundamental Right Guaranteed Under Article 19(1)(A) And Other Related Laws Being Force In India, For The Time Being. Further, despite all efforts made to ensure the accuracy and correctness of the information published, White Code VIA Mediation and Arbitration Centre shall not be responsible for any errors caused due to human error or otherwise.