Patna High Court
M/S Chaudhuri Imaging Associates Pvt. Ltd.versusThe Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through its Chairman cum Managing Director
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- THE CHIEF JUSTICE
Holding
The Court appointed Justice Jyoti Saran as the sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Summary
M/S Chaudhuri Imaging Associates Pvt. Ltd. entered into an insurance contract with Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. for coverage of its property, and after a flood in September 2019 the insurer paid a quantum of loss that the insured contested. The petitioner issued an arbitration notice on 31 July 2021 invoking the arbitration clause in the policy, but no arbitrator was appointed despite repeated attempts. The petitioner then filed a request case under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the court’s assistance in appointing an arbitrator. The High Court held that there was no legal impediment to arbitration, as the dispute was civil in nature and the contractual arbitration clause was valid. On the parties’ consent, the Court appointed former Judge Justice Jyoti Saran as the sole arbitrator to determine the quantum of the claim, directing the parties to cooperate and noting that issues of limitation could be raised before the arbitrator. The petition was consequently disposed with the appointment order.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 when the parties fail to agree on an arbitrator.
- Whether there exists any legal impediment to referring the dispute over the quantum of insurance claim to arbitration.
Legislation cited
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 11(6)
Subjects
- Arbitration
- Insurance
- Quantum of claim
- Section 11(6)
- Appointment of arbitrator
- Contract dispute
- High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
REQUEST CASE No.1 of 2025
======================================================
M/S Chaudhuri Imaging Associates Pvt. Ltd. through its Director, Rajan
Chaudhuri, aged about 61 years, male, S/o Late Vinay Kumar Choudhary,
Road No. 2 Behind Rajendra Nagar Telephone Exchange, Rajendra Nagar,
P.S. Kadam Kuan, District/Town-Patna-800016.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through its Chairman cum Managing
Director Head Office, Oriental House, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-
110 002.
2. Chief Regional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Regional
Office at Sone Bhawan, 5th Floor, Birchand Patel Marg, Patna-800001.
3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through its Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office No. 1, Anand Vihar, 4th Floor, East Boring Canal Road,
Patna-800001.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Prasad Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Durgesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 17-04-2026
This request case has been filed under Section 11(6)
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter ‘1996
Act’) by M/S Chaudhuri Imaging Associates Pvt. Ltd. with a
prayer for appointment of an arbitrator for adjudication of
dispute between the parties in accordance with the Arbitration
Agreement as contained in Condition No. 13 of the contract of
insurance agreement dated 04.07.2019 (Annexure-P1).
Condition No. 13 of the insurance agreement dated
04.07.2019 reads as follows:-
Patna High Court REQ. CASE No.1 of 2025 dt.17-04-2026
2/5
“13. If any dispute or difference shall arise as
to the quantum to be paid under this policy
(liability being otherwise admitted) such
difference shall independently of all other
questions be referred to the decision of a
sole arbitrator to be appointed in writing by
the parties to or if they cannot agree upon a
single arbitrator within 30 days of any
party invoking arbitration, the same shall
be referred to a panel of three arbitrators,
comprising of two arbitrators, one to be
appointed by each of the parties to the
dispute/difference and the third arbitrator
to be appointed by such two arbitrators and
arbitration shall be conducted under and in
accordance with the provisions of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.It is
clearly agreed and understood that no
difference or dispute shall be referable to
arbitration as hereinbefore provided, if the
Company has disputed or not accepted
liability under or in respect of this policy.
It is hereby expressly stipulated and declared
that it shall be a condition precedent to any
right of action or suit upon this policy that
the award by such arbitrator/ arbitrators of
the amount of the loss or damage shall be
first obtained.”
2. It is the case of the petitioner that an agreement
was executed between the petitioner and the respondent Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd. for insuring the petitioner’s property.
On 27/28.09.2019, unfortunately the insured properties of the
petitioner got damaged due to heavy rain. For assessing the
Patna High Court REQ. CASE No.1 of 2025 dt.17-04-2026
3/5
damage, a surveyor was appointed who assessed the damage
caused to the petitioner and submitted a report to the Insurance
Company regarding the loss suffered by the petitioner. The
petitioner raised serious objection to the quantum of amount
sanctioned to him and sent Arbitration Notice dated 31.07.2021
invoking the arbitration clause, but to no avail. Thereafter, the
petitioner filed Request Case No. 74 of 2021, which was
disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file afresh on the
same and subsequent cause of action, in case there is any need
so arises subsequently. As the dispute regarding quantum of the
insurance amount could not be resolved, the petitioner again
invoked the arbitration clause provided in the insurance policy,
which could not bear any fruit and therefore, the petitioner has
filed the present petition for appointment of an independent
arbitrator.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find
that there is no legal impediment in the adjudication of dispute
by the Arbitrator, more particularly when the dispute arises out
of the agreement which is being civil in nature and the petitioner
has exhausted the channel available for resolution of the dispute.
4. In view of such finding as arrived at and on
consensus of both the learned counsel for the parties, Hon’ble
Patna High Court REQ. CASE No.1 of 2025 dt.17-04-2026
4/5
Mr. Justice Jyoti Saran, former Judge of this Court, is appointed
as learned Arbitrator to adjudicate all disputes arising out of
agreement entered into between the parties to the lis.
5. All the pleas and issues raised, on merits, are left
open to be considered and decided by the learned Arbitrator.
6. The learned Arbitrator shall be entitled to fee as
per the Schedule of the Act.
7. Since the dispute arises out of an agreement of the
year 2019, the hearing be expedited.
Parties undertake to fully cooperate and not to take
any unnecessary adjournment.
The issue of limitation, if any, is left open to be
raised before the learned Arbitrator.
8. Joint Registrar (List) is directed to communicate
the order to the learned Arbitrator.
9. Learned counsel for the parties also undertake to
communicate the order to the learned Arbitrator.
10. The learned Arbitrator shall issue notice to the
parties.
11. The Request Petition stands disposed of in the
above terms.
12. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand
Patna High Court REQ. CASE No.1 of 2025 dt.17-04-2026
5/5
disposed of.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
P.K.P./-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 18.04.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…