SPML Infra Limited Vs East India Udyog Limited

Calcutta High Court 18 Jan 2022 A.P. No. 403, 406, 407, 408 Of 2020 (2022) 01 CAL CK 0054
Bench: Single Bench
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

A.P. No. 403, 406, 407, 408 Of 2020

Hon'ble Bench

Prakash Shrivastava, CJ

Advocates

Satadeep Bhattacharyya, S. R. Kakrania, Tanuj Kakrania, Ishan Saha, Tanay Agarwal, Pallavi Ghosh

Acts Referred
  • Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 7, 7(4)(b), 7(4)(c), 7(5), 11, 12(1), 21

Judgement Text

Translate:

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.,

From The Blog
Madras High Court to Hear School’s Plea Against State Objection to RSS Camp on Campus
Feb
07
2026

Court News

Madras High Court to Hear School’s Plea Against State Objection to RSS Camp on Campus
Read More
Delhi High Court Quashes Ban on Medical Students’ Inter-College Migration, Calls Rule Arbitrary
Feb
07
2026

Court News

Delhi High Court Quashes Ban on Medical Students’ Inter-College Migration, Calls Rule Arbitrary
Read More