9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 1455X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that since it is an important legal issue therefore, he is making his submissions on legal issue only. The petitioner s argument that the appointment of the Arbitral Tribunal is bad in view of Item 22 of the Fifth Schedule to the Act is entirely frivolous and without any basis whatsoever. Insofar as the petitioner s challenge in terms of Item 24 of the Fifth Schedule is concerned, the said argument has no consequence as Justice Shah (Retd.) has been appointed as an Arbitrator in relation to similar disputes between the same parties under two Purchase Orders pertaining to the same project at Annupur. The Arbitral Tribunal has already been constituted and has entered into reference who has already ensured the compliance of the provision under the amended Act about no conflict. Now, the petitioner cannot be allowed to change the Arbitral Tribunal - Even, besides the stipulation of the agreement/purchase order governing the parties, this Court inclines to appoint Hon ble Mr. Justice A.P. Shah (Retd. Chief Justice) as sole Arbitrator to decide the dispute between the parties. There is no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly of Reversible Bucket Wheel Type Stacker-cum-Reclaimer by the respondent. Over Rs. 2 crores Rs. 5,40,52,473/- 2. TRF Ltd. v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd. OMP(I) Comm. No. 19/2016 Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 The petitioner was issued Letter of Intent dated 21st November, 2013, which was issued to the petitioner by sole respondent for supply of 'Plough Feeder' for the end use project of Moser Baer and/or LANCO Projects Ltd. The said LOI was subsequently culminated into Purchase Order dated 9th December, 2013. Over Rs. 2 crores Rs. 1, 71,92,000/- 3. TRF Ltd. v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd. OMP(I) Comm. No. 20/2016 Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Respondent had issued a Letter of Intent dated 1st January, 2014 for the work of supply erection and commissioning of 'Wagon Tippler and Side Arm Charger' in favour of the petitioner. After a lapse of almost five months from the issuance of LOI, a Purchase Order with respect to supply of Wagon Tippler and Side Arm Charger dated 6th May, 2014 was issued by the sole respondent. Over Rs. 2 crores Rs. 11,13,95,500/- 4. TRF ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,50,000/- executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent in pursuance to the agreement entered between the parties. 4. TRF Ltd. vs. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd., O.M.P.(I) (Comm.) 69/2015 Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, for interim orders. The respondent No. 1 issued a purchase order to the petitioner dated 10th May, 2014 for supply of Wagon Tippler and Side Arm Charger. Over Rs. 2 crore Restrain the respondent from encashing the Bank Guarantee 1403831BGA00009 for Rs. 1,12,26,700/-and 1403831BGP00027 for Rs. 1,21,76,700/-executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent in pursuance to the agreement entered between the parties. 5. TRF Ltd. vs. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd., O.M.P.(I) (Comm.) 70/2015 Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, for interim orders. The respondent No. 1 issued a purchase order to the petitioner dated 9th December, 2013 for supply, erection and commissioning of Plough Feeder. Over Rs. 2 crore Restrain the respondent from encashing the Bank Guarantee 140383IBGA00006 for Rs. 31,26,000/-and 140383IBGP00025 for Rs. 31,26,000/-executed by the petitioner in favour of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for appointing an Arbitrator as contemplated by Section 11(2) of the Act. In these circumstances, the disputes between the parties have to be decided in accordance with such procedure and recourse to Section 11(5) of the Act cannot be taken by the petitioner. 18. The petitioner has also contended that since the respondent's Managing Director has himself become "ineligible" to be appointed as an Arbitrator, he cannot also nominate any other person as an Arbitrator and any such appointment is contrary to the rule of law and that is the intent and purpose of the recent amendments to the Act. The petitioner has also alleged that the arbitration agreement under clause 33.d of the GTCPO is rendered void. The petitioner's arguments in this regard are without any merit, as the right of the Managing Director to nominate a sole Arbitrator under the Purchase Order is independent of his right to himself act as the sole Arbitrator. 19. The mere reason that the Managing Director of the respondent cannot act as a sole Arbitrator in the disputes between the parties does not take away his right to nominate an independent and neutral Arbitrator. 20. Appointment of an independe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grounds which give rise to justifiable doubts as to the independence or impartiality of arbitrators. Under Section 12(1) of the Act, a person who is approached in connection with his possible appointment as an Arbitrator is to be guided by the Fifth Schedule while determining whether the circumstances exist which give rise to justifiable doubts and if so, he shall disclose the same in the form specified in the Sixth Schedule. 25. The petitioner's argument that the appointment of the Arbitral Tribunal is bad in view of Item 22 of the Fifth Schedule to the Act is entirely frivolous and without any basis whatsoever. Insofar as the petitioner's challenge in terms of Item 24 of the Fifth Schedule is concerned, the said argument has no consequence as Justice Shah (Retd.) has been appointed as an Arbitrator in relation to similar disputes between the same parties under two Purchase Orders pertaining to the same project at Annupur. With regard to Item 29 of the Fifth Schedule to the Act, it stipulates that if the Arbitrator has within the past three years received more than three appointments by the same counsel or the same law firm, the Item would show that the same is in relatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
