Calcutta High Court
Global Vectra Helicorp Limited vs Flying Training Institute (Fti) on 11 June, 2025
Author: Shampa Sarkar
Bench: Shampa Sarkar
ORDER OCD-19
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
COMMERCIAL DIVISION
ORIGINAL SIDE
AP-COM/448/2025
GLOBAL VECTRA HELICORP LIMITED
VS
FLYING TRAINING INSTITUTE (FTI)
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR
Date: 11th June 2025.
Appearance:-
Mr. Avik Dhar, Adv.
... for petitioner.
Mr. Paritosh Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Arindam Mandal, Adv.
... for the State.
1. This is an application for appointment of an independent and impartial
person as a sole arbitrator to adjudicatethe dispute between the parties.
The reference was made to the learned arbitrator pursuant to an order
passed on August 21, 2024 in AP-COM/627/2024.
2. AP-COM/627/2024 was filed for appointment of a learned arbitrator. The
Court observed that clause 14.1 of the agreement provided that the
reference to arbitration should be preceded by an attempt at amicable
settlement. The counsel for the respondent opposed such prayer for
appointment of the learned arbitrator on the ground that by a written
agreement, the petitioner had waived the right to challenge the
independence of the named arbitrator. As per the agreement, the
Secretary, Law Department,Government of West Bengal was the named
2
arbitrator by designation, in the said clause. The Court turned down the
objection raised by the respondent with regard to the petitioner not having
exhausted the procedure for amicable settlement prior to filing the
application for appointment of a learned arbitrator. With regard to the
other objection of the respondent, the Court was of the view that by a
communication dated September 7, 2023, the petitioner had categorically
mentioned that in case the issue remainedunresolved, the petitioner
would go for arbitration and take up the matter with the Secretary, Law
Department, Government of West Bengal. The petitioner wrote that the
Secretary, Law Department, Government of West Bengal was to act as the
sole arbitrator. This, according to the Learned Judge, was sufficient
waiver of the applicability of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996. Accordingly, the said application was dismissed,
by granting liberty to the petitioner to refer the dispute to the Secretary,
Law Department, Government of West Bengal in terms of clause 14 of the
agreement between the parties.
3. The learned arbitrator continued with the arbitration and the proceeding
was at the stage of evidence, when a question with regard to impartiality of
the tribunal was raised.Unfortunately, the learned arbitrator recorded that
he was inclined to terminate the proceeding and that the arbitration
proceeding had come to an end at the stage of evidence.
4. The petitioner submits that the allegationwith regard to partiality of the
arbitrator was made by mistake before the learned arbitrator. The
3
petitioner is willing to continue before the learned arbitrator. The matter
has reached a matured stage and is likely to be concluded soon. The
petitioner is willing to tender unqualified apology to the learned arbitrator
and withdraw the evidence filed, by making allegation against the learned
arbitrator, filing afresh.
5. This application has been filed under Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 15 deals with termination of mandate and
substitution of an arbitrator. The said provision prescribes that the
mandate of the arbitrator shall terminate when he withdraws from office
without any reason or pursuant to an agreement between the parties. In
this case, the learned arbitrator has not withdrawn but has terminated
the proceeding, as the order indicates. The order of termination cannot be
assailed in this proceeding. The remedy of the petitioner is before another
forum.
6. Under such circumstances, the application is disposed of, granting
liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum with the fair
submissions made before this Court that the petitioner had mistakenly
filed the evidence with an allegation, but the petitioner wishes to withdraw
the same and the petitioner wants to continue with the proceeding before
the learned arbitrator from the stage of evidence.
(SHAMPA SARKAR, J.)
S. Kumar / R.D. Barua