High CourtsSingle Bench(2022) 01 CAL CK 0054

SPML Infra Limited vs East India Udyog Limited

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 18 January 2022

HON’BLE JUDGES
Prakash Shrivastava, CJ
CASE NUMBER
A.P. No. 403, 406, 407, 408 Of 2020

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

20 paragraphs · 383 words

Jurisdiction :-,"All disputes & differences arising out of or in connection with this agreement shall in the first

instance be settled amicably by mutual negotiation between authorized representatives of both

the parties herein, failing which the said disputes & differences shall be referred to arbitration

by sole arbitrators to be appointed by the buyer herein. The arbitration shall be conducted in

accordance with the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and/or any statutory modification

thereof. The venue of such arbitration shall be Kolkata and the award passed by the tribunal

shall be final & binding on the parties.

12.

Learned Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mankastu Impex,

Private Limited vs. Airvisual Limited, (2020) 5 SCC 399 but that was a case where observations were made in the background of the fact that in",

addition to providing Hong Kong as place of arbitration in the arbitration agreement in that case, it was also provided that any controversy, difference",

arising out of or relating to MoU shall be resolved by arbitration administered in Hong Kong. Both the judgments in the case of BGS SGS SOMA JV,

vs. NHPC LIMITED and also Mankastu Impex Private Limited vs. Airvisual Limited three-Judge Bench judgment, and the ratio of the earlier",

judgment is not diluted by the subsequent judgment. Hence, the objection raised by the respondent in respect of the jurisdiction is overruled.",

13.

The record further reflects that in reply to the notice under Section 21 of the Act, the respondent had not disputed the arbitration agreement but his",

only objection was that in view of the subsequent development there was nothing left for adjudication of any dispute.,

14.

Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the arbitration agreement exists between the parties and the dispute has arisen, therefore,",

an independent arbitrator needs to be appointed to resolve the dispute, hence I propose the name of Mr. Ajeya Matilal, retired District Judge, resident",

of 18B, Durga Pituri Lane, Kolkata â€" 700 012 (Mobile No. 9477207862) for appointment as arbitrator. Let his declaration in terms of Section 12(1)",

of the Act in the form prescribed in Schedule VI of the Act be obtained.,

15.

List on 01.02.2022 on top of the list.,