The Counsel on behalf of the respondent Mr. Vishwanathan KV has made his submission that respondent wanted any High Court judge having station of Calcutta to be appointed as an Arbitrator and petitioners are suggesting the names of retired judges of Supreme Court having station in Delhi. The Supreme Court on Friday gave its consent for the name of (Retd) Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly to be appointed as an arbitrator on the suggestion made by the Counsel of petitioner Haldibari Tea Manufacturers LLP in an alleged dispute with one of its partner, Kajal Sarkar. The three-Judge Bench of Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice B.V. Nagarathna heard both the parties, who gave the names of various Judges in form of suggestion to appoint as Arbitrator, in order to settle their dispute. Advocate Diksha Mishra, Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that they have already taken permission from this court in previous hearing to propose the names of the arbitrator.
The Counsel, on behalf of respondent Vishwanathan KV, made submission that respondent wanted any High Court judge having station of Calcutta to be appointed as an Arbitrator and petitioners are suggesting the names of retired judges of Supreme Court having station in Delhi. Diksha countered that there is no seat of arbitration that has been fixed as per the agreement. The petitioner has proposed the names of retired Justice Rohinton F. Nariman, Justice Indu Malhotra, Justice AK Patnaik and made a request that anyone can deal with the matter, as this case is of the single arbitrator. However, the respondent suggested the names of Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya, Justice Tapan Sen, Justice Pranab Chattopadhyay and Justice Samapti Chatterjee, and requested the Court to select any name from this list. Advocate Diksha Mishra have contended that petitioners need an independent arbitrator who is not from the state and not from the suggestions given by the respondents. She has submitted further that petitioners have apprehension that respondents are having some local influence.
The High Court had concluded that there were sufficient grounds to doubt the maintainability of the Section 9 application and the impugned order was patently perverse and suffered from errors of law and fact. Thus, the challenge was allowed, the District Judge’s order was set aside and a connected application (CAN 1 of 2021) was disposed off consequentially by the same judgement. Case Name- Haldibari Tea Manufacturers LLP V. Kajal Sarkar
Tags : #SUPREME COURT #DELHI #ARBITRATOR #ADVOCATES #JUDGES #APPOINTMENT #GOVERNMENT #JUDICIARY #DISPUTE #PROCEEDINGS