Full Judgment
G.A.657 of 2014 APOT105of 2014 A.P.No.172 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original Sid CENTRAL INLAND WATER TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD.Versus MACKSIN SHIPPING CO.PVT.LTD.Appellant Respondent BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE TAPASH MOOKHERJEE Date : 4th March, 2014.
For the Appellant : Mr.Arindam Mukherjee with Mr.Ashok Kumar Jena, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr.Shiv Shankar Banerjee with Ms.Rituparna Mazumder, Advocates THE COURT : The appellant approached the learned single Court under section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996, inter alia, praying for the following reliefs :- “a)The respondents be directed to make all arrangement to secure loose the components and/or machineries engineer and at P.T.Trivandrum Government surveyor and to call for check and certify the repairs carried out by the respondent as also to certify that the vessel is secured and fit to be towed out of the yard of the respondent ; b) A direction be given upon the respondent to allow an inspection of the M.S.steel plates now lying with the respondent after verifying the quantity utilized in the repairs ;” The learned Judge declined to pass the order.
At the same time, the learned Judge referred the issue to the Central illegality official Government and in as to irregularity awarding the whether committed contract to there by the was the any erring respondent.
Hence this appeal by the appellant.
Mr.for the Arindam Mukherjee, appellant would learned contend, counsel the appearing prayer was innocuous.
Since the dispute arose between the parties to facilitate proper adjudication a survey was necessary.
Moreover, the appellant wants to inspect M.S.steel plates lying with the respondent.
We have also heard Mr.Shiv Shankar Banerjee learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
Upon considering the rival contentions we feel, for interests of justice, a survey would be necessary to assist the Arbitrator to come to the final conclusion while adjudicating Hence we allow the prayer disputes (a) between quoted the above.
parties.
Mr.Banerjee would, however, object to the same.
According to him, there was no scope for survey.
We feel, mere survey by a surveyor at foreclose the the admissibility instance right of of the of the report.
the appellant respondent If the to would not oppose the respondent would feel, it was not properly done, they would be at liberty to challenge the report before the Arbitrator.
With regard to inspection we feel, while the surveyor would conduct his business, the representatives of both sides would be present that would serve the purpose.
Mr.Mukherjee would also insist upon setting aside the other part of the order that directed the Central Government to inquire into the irregularity.
We do not wish to intervene.
Mr.Banerjee would also contend, there was no arbitration clause.
Such submission is strenuously disputed by respondent Mr.Mukherjee.
submitted tender According and accepted to him, the work the in terms of the General Conditions of Contract that would incorporate arbitration clause.
Moreover, purchase order would also contain an arbitration clause.
We do not express any opinion on the issue and leave it for the Arbitrator to decide under section 16 of the Act.
Both the appeal and the application are disposed of accordingly without any order as to costs.
( BANERJEE, J.) (TAPASH MOOKHERJEE, J.) Rs.AR(CR)