Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Singhania Enterprises Vs. the Chief Engineer, Hq Chief Engineer Siliguri Zone

Singhania Enterprises vs The Chief Engineer, Hq Chief Engineer Siliguri Zone

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Jan 08, 2014
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1118166

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kolkata High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Arbitration

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Arbitration

Key legal issue
Arbitration

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Singhania Enterprises

Respondent

The Chief Engineer, Hq Chief Engineer Siliguri Zone

Excerpt

.....chakraborty, adv.mr.swagata datta, adv.the court : the petitioner complains of the failure on the part of the appointing authority to nominate the arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement between the parties. the present request under section 11 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 was carried to the chief justice of this court or his designate after the appointing authority or the respondent had suggested that the petitioner had no right to invoke the arbitration agreement. the petition under section 11 was dismissed for default on august 14, 2013 and restored upon notice to the respondent on september 6, 2013. the respondent says that notwithstanding the earlier stand taken by the respondent or the appointing authority, an arbitrator was named on september 29, 2013. the petitioner says that after the request was already in court, the appointing authority could not have appointed an arbitrator, particularly since the petition had been restored upon notice to the respondent. the relevant clause requires a serving officer having degree in engineering or equivalent or having passed final/direct final examination of subdivision-ii of institution of surveyors (india) recognised by the government of india to be appointed as an arbitrator. the appointing authority is the engineerin-chief or director general of works. in view of the failure of the appointing authority to appoint an arbitrator within reasonable time of the petitioner’s request, the appointing authority lost the right to make the appointment and the subsequent appointment of september 29, 2013 during the pendency this request in court cannot be accepted and is set aside. as a consequence, the arbitrator appointed on november 25, 2013 upon the original arbitrator resigning is also set aside. however, since the arbitration agreement requires a person possessing certain qualifications to be appointed as arbitrator, the engineer-in-chief of military engineering services, siliguri zone.....

Full Judgment

1 ORDER

SHEET A.P.No.864 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SINGHANIA ENTERPRISES Versus THE CHIEF ENGINEER, HQ CHIEF ENGINEER SILIGURI ZONE BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 8th January, 2014.

Appearance : Ms.Hasnuhana Chakraborty, Adv.Mr.Swagata Datta, Adv.The Court : The petitioner complains of the failure on the part of the appointing authority to nominate the arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement between the parties.

The present request under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was carried to the Chief Justice of this Court or his designate after the appointing authority or the respondent had suggested that the petitioner had no right to invoke the arbitration agreement.

The petition under Section 11 was dismissed for default on August 14, 2013 and restored upon notice to the respondent on September 6, 2013.

The respondent says that notwithstanding the earlier stand taken by the respondent or the appointing authority, an arbitrator was named on September 29, 2013.

The petitioner says that after the request was already in Court, the appointing authority could not have appointed an arbitrator, particularly since the petition had been restored upon notice to the respondent.

The relevant clause requires a serving officer having degree in engineering or equivalent or having passed final/direct final examination of subdivision-II of Institution of Surveyors (India) recognised by the Government of India to be appointed as an arbitrator.

The appointing authority is the Engineerin-Chief or Director General of works.

In view of the failure of the appointing authority to appoint an arbitrator within reasonable time of the petitioner’s request, the appointing authority lost the right to make the appointment and the subsequent appointment of September 29, 2013 during the pendency this request in Court cannot be accepted and is set aside.

As a consequence, the arbitrator appointed on November 25, 2013 upon the original arbitrator resigning is also set aside.

However, since the arbitration agreement requires a person possessing certain qualifications to be appointed as arbitrator, the Engineer-in-Chief of Military Engineering Services, Siliguri Zone is requested to name an arbitrator other than either the person named in the order dated September 29, 2013 or November 25, 2013 to take up the reference in accordance with the arbitration agreement between the parties.

The name of the arbitrator should be communicated to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from date.

AP No.864 of 2013 is allowed as above without any order as to costs.

Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) SBI

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial