High CourtsSingle Bench(2022) 09 UK CK 0071

M/s Litmus Marine Innovation Private Limited vs Uttarakhand Tourism Development Board

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 16 September 2022

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vipin Sanghi, CJ
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Arbitration Application No. 19 Of 2022

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

14 paragraphs · 353 words

Vipin Sanghi, CJ

1) This Arbitration Application has been preferred by the applicant to seek appointment of a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes which have arisen between the parties in respect of the Contract Agreement entered into between the parties for development of Adventure Tourist Centre Uttarakhand – Lot – 1, supply of Adventure Sports Equipment (Water Sports), Contract Package Nos: UK/IDIPT/DDN/06-Lot 1/P2.

2) The cost of works under the Contract was estimated as Rs.8,02,82,069.59. According to the applicant, dispute arose between the parties, and the Arbitration Clause contained in Clause GCC 10.2 was invoked by the applicant vide a legal notice dated 10.12.2018.

3) The Arbitration Agreement between the parties reads as follows:

“GCC 10.2:

The formal mechanism for the resolution of disputes shall be:

For a contract with a Local Supplier : “In the case of a dispute between the Purchaser and the Supplier, the dispute shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any statutory modification or enactment thereof.

The place of arbitration shall be Dehradun, Uttarakhand.

The language of arbitration shall be English.

Appointing Authority for the Arbitrator : Chairperson of Institute of Engineers, “Uttarakhand” State Centre, Dehradun.

The expenditure incurred in the Arbitration process will be borne by either the Purchaser or the Supplier, as directed by the Arbitrator.”

4) The notice invoking arbitration was issued to the Chairman, Institute of Engineers, Uttarakhand State Centre, Saharanpur Road, Majra, Dehradun. Despite issuance of the said notice, the Appointing Authority has not made the appointment of the Arbitrator and, consequently, this application has been preferred.

5) Learned counsel for the respondent, on instructions, has not disputed the fact that parties entered into aforesaid Contract Agreement, which also contains the Arbitration Clause. Since the Appointing Authority has not made the appointment of the Arbitrator in terms of the Arbitration Agreement, I am inclined to allow this application.

6) Accordingly, I appoint Mr. Justice V.K. Bist, Retd. Chief Justice, Sikkim High Court, to act as a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate all the disputes which have arisen between the parties under the aforesaid agreement.