cX IN THE fflGH COURT OF CHHATISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC N0. 3 ;^ OF 2005 IN THE MATTER OF Predominant Engineers & Contractors Pvt Ltd a company registered under fhe Compames Act, 1956 A - 14/28 A, DLF Qutub Enclave Phase I - Gurgaon, HARYANA Petitioner Versus Ind Agro Synergy Limited a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 Plot No. 624, Urla Industrial Area Raipui-493221 CHHATISGARH Also at: Ind Agro Synergy Limited 201, Shri Krishna Apartments, 10,DagaLayout Norih Ambazari Road Nagpur-440033 MAHARASHTRA ^y ^y ^l .iN' > ^yspondent ^' AV-^"0.- ^y. '^B>-" ^"' Respondent Application under section 11(6) ofthe Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appomtment ofan Arbitrator XI-HC-78 sn^r^Tl^ira? OTTsn^rgBTR? c, :3vB!'^WMV, ®Tfly'16,Rldltiy< __ MCC\\c.. 5^/^^S_ *41*1MI sh*l)ch •••••••••••••<••••••• ^- 200 3TI^?T(R^ (yii^ci^) ?OTW:gf?tT31^T 22.08.2006 Shri V.R. Rao, iearned Advocate for the petitioner in M.C.C.No. 171/05. counsel with Shri Vinod Deshmukh, fjfl.C.C.No. 52/05 and for respondent in Shri Anil Pandey, teaf M.C.C.171/05 and for respondenl) Since the petitioner in M.C| 171/05^ vice versa, both these| common order. The PECPL has preferred| Section 11(6) ofthe Arbitration atjid of an arbitrator in the capacity of [tietitioner Learned counset for the to non-payment of Rs. 53,46,; raised by it. When the dispute s4 15.12.2004 addressed to the arbitration clause of the contract Shri Justice P.K. Jain, retired to be appointed as arbitrator on| between them and called upon Shri Justice P.K. Jain (Retd.) to from the date of receipt of that dated 20th January 2005 did not | Hon'ble Shri Justice P.K. Jain <t)l<(Fd41'l ITTtl^ft' if fS<S rfSfCTf ^)3i1^T3TT^r ned counsel for the petitioner in in M.C.C.No. 52/05. .C.No. 52/05 is respondent in M.C.C.No. appiications are disposed of by this an application {M.C.C.No. 52/05} uncfer Concifiation Act, 1996 for appointment PtCPL submits that a dispute with respect ?!p0/- towards the consultancy fees was raised was not resolved, a notice dated was sent by the PECPL invota'ng [igreement, whereby the name of Hon'ble ofthe Delhi High Courtwas proposed their behalf to settle the dispute arose to confirm the nomination of Hon'ble appointed as arbitrator within 30 days n|otice. However, the IASL by their reply |consent to the proposed appointment of ](Retd.) as sole arbitrator and also no 3!DO/ lASL Jud^e 14SL tte ^ P.T.O. ^ XI-HC-78 *TTH<'TT^W<^ 3:c?srpn^pr^ t(T)1u'i<o, fciditiL}< m^.^.^.?.^:. ^ 200 3T1^?TMach (yil^q^ff) —?- •W^r^iTR-li'b g^TTSTT^Tsh^lc^ s^iTWHf^rsn^r lASL DroDosal was made on behalf of said reply. Hence, the instant aprilication filed for appointment of sole arbitra|t Subsequent to filing of this application being M.C.C.No. 171/0f and Conciliation Act with respect tc( in dispute that the parties enl^red engineering and consultancy servfi stipulation of this contract agreeifient consulting engineer (PECPL) and and eonditions hereof or their int^rpretation the courts at Raipur only & exclusjvely arbitrator in terms of the provision^ 1996. parti|es The contract agreement also not in dispute that the arising out of the contract agree| procedure is prescribed in the cor|i by notice dated 15.12.2004 prop4 P.K. Jain (Retd.) to be appointed ^ consent the proposed name which| IASL vide reply dated 20.01 .200^, disputed that.the dispute betwe^n arbitrator whteh is within the jurisdii| wrfepftr WTcff ff 1WI rf^FRK ^73Tl^T3n^T for aDDointment of arbitrator bv the i.e. M.C.C. No. 52/05 has been tor. petition the IASL has also preferred an 5 under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration the same.contract agreement. It is not into a contract agreement for ces on 02nd April 2003 and as per the any dispute<arising between the the client (IASL) in regard to the terms shall have the jurisdiction of and the dispute shall be settled by of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, be^iveen the parties is not in dispute. It is arti|es have agreed to refer their dispute [nent to the sole arbitrator though no |itract agreement. The fact that PECPL jised the name of Hon'ble Shri Justice )s sole arbitrator, requested the IASL to was subsequently turned down by the j, is also not in dispute. It is also not the parties can be referred to an ttion ofthisCourt. .0. XI-HC-78 ari^rwf^TN; craTSffl^rginNi ^T.. ^l^—' HIHdl S»rHI<»i 3^ "ifl'Mld^, OTn'H'IS, Rclldy »•»»****.****** »A <-» *,» » ^R; 200 3TT^?T4ach (li<:l^€l<^£r) - 3- CTciTW^fN'sn^r As a result, both thes observation that it is a fit case of the dispute. ft>r However, at the time of| the proceedings that they hav4 Court is appointed as the sole 4 qirafrpft? WRff ff te^l-ri^TRK ^sif^Tan^r e applications are disposed of with an appointment of arbitrator for adjudication hearing it was submitted by the parties to no objection if any retired Judge of High rbitrator to adjudicate the dispute. I, therefore, hereby appfsint Hon'ble Shri Justice C.P. Sen, retired Judge of M.P. High Court, Jab^lpur, presently 'residing at Jnanranjan Sen Marg, 205, Congress Nagar, N|agpur-440012, as Arbitrator, subject to his consent. 1 The Hon'ble Arbitrator remunerations. may settle his terms and conditions and Registry to intimate Hon[ble Shri Justice C.P. Sen, retired Judge of M.P. High Court, about his ap||)ointment as Arbitrator and to send all the papers along with address ofth|e parties. Parties are also directed|to approach Hon'ble Shri Justice C.P. Sen (Retd.), who is presently residii|ig at Jnanranjan Sen Marg, 205, Congress Nagar, Nagpur and to subm|t papers and to take part in arbitration proceedings. Sd/- ^ ; Dhu-endra Mishra" Judge ^^ ¥ -^y <f~ - 7^v P.T.O.