IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ARBP No.53 of 2025 Jindal United Steel Limited, New Delhi …. Petitioner Mr. Anupam Dash, Advocate -Versus- Amber Furnace Engineering, Mumbai …. Opposite Party None CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE Order No. ORDER 08.08.2025 02. 1. Pursuant to the order dated 18th July 2025, the service is sought to be effected upon the opposite party both by post as well as electronic mail. 2. There is no representation on behalf of the opposite party when the matter is taken up. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as the postal article containing the petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, ‘the Act’) is concerned, it has returned with the postal remark ‘no addressee found.’ However, the service is effected through an electronic mail and files a memo indicating the service to have been effected in this regard. Let the said memo be taken on record. Page 2 of 3 3. It appears that the e-mail address of the opposite party was always used as a mode of communication since the advent of the commercial transactions. Even a notice under Section 21 of the Act invoking the arbitration clause was also served upon the opposite party through electronic mail and, therefore, this Court finds that the service has been effected upon the opposite party. 4. The dispute cropped up in relation to a work contract dated 13th June, 2022 entered into between the parties wherein the opposite party was entrusted a work for supply of goods and services required for installation of refractory lining work for JUSL for Jajpur, Odisha. The said agreement contains an arbitration clause that in the event any dispute cropped up between the parties in relation to or touching upon or arising from the said agreement, the same shall be determined and/or adjudicated through three arbitrators—one would be appointed by the petitioner, one by the opposite party and one to be chosen by the said arbitrators. 5. It appears that the parties are not seeing eye to eye on the appointment of an arbitrator and despite the request having made, there is a complete silence on the part of the opposite party. Since the silence is presumed as denial in terms of the said arbitration agreement, there is no infirmity on the part of the petitioner to approach the Court for appointment of an arbitrator. This Court does not find that the arbitration clause suffers from any infirmities and the petition is therefore allowed. 6. After considering the nature of the dispute and the claim so raised, Mr. Prakash Ranjan Barik, Advocate of this Court is appointed as the Arbitrator, who shall decide the dispute between the parties immediately upon communication of the instant order and determine the dispute raised by the parties. The arbitration shall take place under the aegis of the High Court of Orissa Arbitration Centre. Remuneration of the Arbitrator shall be equally paid by the parties as per the 4th Schedule appended to the said Act. The Arbitrator shall make efforts to adhere the time limit set forth in Section 29A of the said Act. 7. This arbitration petition is thus disposed of. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice M. Panda Signed by: MRUTYUNJAYA PANDA Designation: Secretary Orissa, Cuttack 14:14:03 Signature Not Verified