Chief Justice's Court Serial No. 301 (E-File)

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD (LUCKNOW)

(1) Civil Misc. Arbitration Application No. 27 of 2022

M/s Vivek Travels ....Applicant Vs.

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation ...Respondent

WITH

(2) Civil Misc. Arbitration Application No. 31 of 2022

M/s Vivek Travels ....Applicant Vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation ...Respondent

WITH

(3) Civil Misc. Arbitration Application No. 32 of 2022

M/s Vivek Travels ....Applicant Vs.

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation ...Respondent

WITH

(4) Civil Misc. Arbitration Application No. 33 of 2022

M/s Vivek Travels ....Applicant Vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation ...Respondent

WITH

M/s Vivek Travels		Applicant
	Vs.

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation ...Respondent

WITH

(6) Civil Misc. Arbitration Application No. 42 of 2022

M/s Vivek Travels ....Applicant Vs.

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation ...Respondent

WITH

(7) Civil Misc. Arbitration Application No. 57 of 2022

M/s Vivek Travels		Applicant
	Vs.
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation		Respondent

WITH

(8) Civil Misc. Arbitration Application No. 59 of 2022

M/s Vivek Travels ....Applicant Vs.

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation ...Respondent

WITH

(9) Civil Misc. Arbitration Application No. 60 of 2022

M/s Vivek Travels		Applicant
	Vs.
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation		Respondent

ARBT No. 27 of 2022

WITH

(10) Civil Misc. Arbitration Application No. 61 of 2022 M/s Vivek Travels ....Applicant Vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation ...Respondent

AND

(11) Civil Misc. Arbitration Application No. 63 of 2022

M/s Vivek Travels ....Applicant

Vs.

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation ...Respondent

Applicants through:- Mr. Manish Jauhari, Advocate

Respondent through:- Mr. Ratnesh Chandra, Advocate

CORAM : HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE

ORDER

1. All these applications have been filed by the same applicant against the same respondent praying for appointment of Arbitrator on account of dispute arising out of an agreement dated March 17, 2017 signed between the parties. Clause 55 thereof provides for arbitration clause, in terms of which the Arbitrator is to be appointed. Clause 56 thereof provides that the Managing Director (hereinafter referred to as 'M.D.') of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation') has to be appointed as Sole Arbitrator, which according to the learned counsel for the applicant, is contrary to the spirit of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The applicant got notice dated November 27, 2021 issued to the respondent for appointment of Arbitrator, to which no reply was received. Hence, prayer is made in the present arbitration applications filed under Section 11(6) of the Act for appointment of an Arbitrator for resolution of dispute arising between the parties. In support of aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC and others Vs. HSCC (India) Limited1 .

2. The only argument is that the Arbitrator is required to be appointed by this Court as Clause 56 of the agreement provides for appointment of the M.D. of the Corporation as Sole Arbitrator for resolution of dispute between the parties, which is contrary to the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC and others' case (supra).

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as per Clause 56 of the Agreement, the M.D. of the Corporation can be appointed as an Arbitrator and the applicant should not have any objection to this. He further submitted that on account of pendency of the present applications, the arbitration proceedings are being delayed as no arbitrator could be appointed till date.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. The factum of agreement and the arbitration clause therein are not in dispute. The applicant is seeking appointment of an Arbitrator for resolution of dispute arising between the parties.

6. Considering the enunciation of law by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC and others' case (supra), a party to the agreement cannot appoint an Arbitrator.

7. For the reasons stated above, in my opinion, an independent Arbitrator deserves to be appointed for resolution of the dispute between

<span id="page-3-0"></span>¹ AIR 2020 SC 59

the parties in all the aforesaid matters.

8. Accordingly, this Court appoints Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harsh Kumar, a retired Judge of this Court as Arbitrator, subject to His Lordship's consent in terms of provisions contained in Section 11(8) read with Section 12 (1) of the Act. His Lordship's address is Tower-6, Flat No. 704, Avadh Vihar Yojna, Sector-3, near Lu-lu Mall and Medanta Hospital, Lucknow 226002 and mobile numbers are 9695926197 and 8707341367 Email ID is "[email protected]".

9. The matters are referred to the Arbitrator for resolution of dispute between the parties. The Arbitrator shall be paid fees as per the schedule attached to the Act.

10. The present applications are disposed of..

11. In case, the Arbitrator recuses, the matters shall be listed before the Court itself for further orders.

(Rajesh Bindal) Chief Justice

Lucknow December 8, 2022 Manish Himwan/Kuldeep

Whether the order is speaking : Yes Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No