M/S Indian Potash Limited vs M/S Prem Sakhi Fertilizer Ltd. (PSFL)

C .Hari Shankar, J

I.A. 5223/2020

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of.

ARB.P. 228/2020

This is a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “1996 Actâ€), seeking appointment

of an arbitrator.

The petitioner M/s. Indian Potash Limited claims an amount of ₹ 5,45,96,985.26 from the respondent, whereas the respondent claims, per contra, an

amount of ₹ 7,01,75,964/- from the petitioner. Both parties, additionally, claim damages.

The arbitration clause, in the agreement between the parties, envisages appointment of an arbitrator by the petitioner. This, however, is not

permissible in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC vs. HSCC (India) Limited AIR 2020 SC 59.

Learned counsel are ad idem at the appointment of Honâ€ble Mr. Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed, former Chief Justice of the High Court of Jammu

and Kashmir and a distinguished retired Judge of this Court, as the sole arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes between them, which, it may be said,

pertains to Memoranda of Understanding, dated 16th September, 2013 and 8th August, 2016 as well as a supplementary agreement, dated 9th

November, 2017.

In view of the agreements between the parties, Honâ€ble Mr. Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed (Retd.) is appointed as the sole arbitrator to arbitrate

on the disputes between the parties. The learned sole arbitrator would be entitled to fees, in accordance with the Fourth Schedule of the 1996 Act.

The learned sole arbitrator would also file the requisite disclosure, in accordance with Section 12 of the 1996 Act.

Counsel for both the parties may contact Honâ€ble Mr. Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed (Retd.) (contact numbers 40453874, 7042205786, email id :

[email protected]) residing at 14, Friends Colony (West), New Delhi, to ascertain the schedule for the arbitration.

Learned sole arbitrator is at liberty to decide, after hearing the parties, who is to be treated as the “claimant†and who is to be treated as the

“counter-claimantâ€​.

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.