Prabir Kumar Ghosh vs Union Of India And Ors on 22 April, 2025

Calcutta High Court

Prabir Kumar Ghosh vs Union Of India And Ors on 22 April, 2025

Author: Shampa Sarkar

Bench: Shampa Sarkar

     ORDER                                                               OC-15

                      IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                    ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                           COMMERCIAL DIVISION

                              AP-COM/924/2024
                            PRABIR KUMAR GHOSH
                                      VS
                           UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR
Date: 7th April, 2025.
                                                                       Appearance:
                                                              Mr. A. Bhuinya, Adv.
                                                                   ...for petitioner.
                                                           Ms. Sumita Sarkar, Adv.
                                                               ...for Union of India.


1.    This is an application for appointment of a learned arbitrator, to settle the

      disputes between the parties.

2.    On the last occasion when the matter was taken up for hearing, it was

      informed by the parties that the matter was pending before the Dispute

      Redressal Committee [DRC]. The respondents' case was that in view of the

alternative dispute redressal mechanism, the application for appointment

of arbitrator should not be taken up on that date. Accordingly, the Court

adjourned the matter and allowed the parties to explore the possibilities of

settlement.

3. Today, it is informed by both the learned advocates for the respective

parties that, conciliation has failed and the matter has been dropped by

the DRC. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the
2

prayer for appointment of a learned arbitrator, in accordance with the

terms and conditions of the agreement, must be entertained.

4. The petitioner’s case is that, as the successful bidder, the petitioner was

awarded work for construction of a parking lot. The work order contained

reciprocal obligations. The standard form of contract being the dotted line

contract, prepared by the respondents, was made applicable to the work

order issued to the petitioner. Clause 25 of the General Conditions of

Contract deals with dispute resolution. According to the petitioner,

disputes arose with regard to the hindrances and obstructions which were

faced by the petitioner during execution of the work. Delay was caused

due to such hindrance. Ultimately, the contract was terminated by the

respondents. The petitioner approached various authorities for an

amicable settlement, which failed. Lastly, the DRC also could not settle

the matter and mutual agreement could not be arrived at.

5. A notice invoking arbitration was issued by the petitioner on 4 th July

2024, which the respondent received. The postal track report indicates

delivery. As per Clause 25 of the GCC, the petitioner was required to

approach one of the authorities for appointment of a sole arbitrator. The

said mechanism failed. In any event, a party who is incompetent to act as

an arbitrator, also cannot appoint the arbitrator. This is contrary to the

entire concept of party autonomy.

6. The application is disposed of by appointing Mr. Suman De, learned

Senior Advocate, as the learned arbitrator, to arbitrate upon the disputes
3

between the parties. This appointment is subject to compliance of Section

12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The learned arbitrator

shall fix his/her own remuneration as per the Schedule of the Act.

(SHAMPA SARKAR, J.)

S. Kumar / R.D. Barua