M-Tech Innovations Ltd, v. The State of Tripura and 2 Ors.
Court: High Court of Tripura
Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Tripura judgment dated 2025-12-12. M-Tech Innovations Ltd, v. The State of Tripura and 2 Ors. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA Arb. P. No. 10 of 2025 M-Tech Innovations Ltd. , a public limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Plot No. 1/2, Rajib Gandhi Infotech Park, Phase 1, Hinjewadi, Pune- 411057. ......... Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Tripura represented by the Secretary, Department of Transport, Government of Tripura, having his office at New Secretariat Building, PO- New Secretariat, PS- New Capital Complex, District- West Tripura, PIN- 799010. 2. The Commissioner, Department of Transport, Government of Tripura, having his office at Paribahan Bhavan, Agartala, PO- Agartala, PS- East Agartala, District- West Tripura, PIN- 799001. 3. The Joint Transport Commissioner, Government of Tripura, having his office at Paribahan Bhavan, Agartala, PO- Agartala, PS- East Agartala, District- West Tripura, PIN- 799001. ......... Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. Pal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Karnajit De, Addl. G. A.
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. S. RAMACHANDRA RAO Order 12/12/2025 Heard both sides. 2. This application is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the petitioner seeking appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties arising out of an agreement dt. 06. 06. 2017 entered into by them. 3. Clause 32 of the said agreement contains the arbitration clause, and the petitioner had issued a notice on 19. 07. 2024 to the respondents invoking the said clause. 4. No reply was given to the said notice by the respondents. 5. However, they have filed a Counter Affidavit stating that they have also a counter claim, that they are disputing the contentions raised by the petitioner, and that they reserve their right also to raise a counter claim if this Court were to appoint an arbitrator. 6. Thus the respondents have not seriously opposed the appointment of arbitrator, and in fact impliedly agreed to the same. 7.
Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, this application is allowed. 8. Sri Subash Sikdar, a retired Grade-I Officer of Tripura Judicial Service is hereby appointed as an arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties subject to submission of his consent and a declaration in terms of Section 12 read with Schedule VI of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 9. Learned Arbitrator is requested to take into consideration the Schedule of Model Fee prescribed under Schedule IV and the timeline prescribed under Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as amended. 10. Registry is directed to communicate the instant order along with a copy of the entire pleadings of the instant petition to the learned Arbitrator forthwith. 11. The instant petition is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (M. S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, CJ) Pijush/ Digitally signed by PULAK BANIK PULAK BANIK Date: 2025. 12. 12 15:18:48 +05'30'
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.