AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
15 paragraphs · 262 wordsRavi Malimath, J
The petitioner is before this Court, in this petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’), seeking
for appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute that has arisen between the parties.
It is the case of the petitioner that there was an agreement, vide Annexure A-2, between the petitioner and the respondent and accordingly a
contract was entered into between the parties. Certain disputes have arisen thereon. Clause-24.4 of the agreement provides for appointment of an
Arbitrator.
Under Section 11(6) of the Act, the High Court, while considering any application under Section 11(6) thereof, must confine its examination only to
the existence of an Arbitration agreement. Since the existence of an arbitration agreement has not been disputed by the respondents, this application
must be ordered, and the dispute referred to arbitration.
Having considered the contentions of both sides, Shri L.R. Sharma, District & Sessions Judge (Retd.), Resident of Flat No.7, Block-C, Sai Flats.
Mehli, Shimla, H.P., is appointed as an Arbitrator after his disclosure in writing is obtained in terms of Section 11(8) of the Act; and only after receipt
thereof shall his appointment, as an Arbitrator, come into force.
On his giving consent to arbitrate the dispute between the parties as an Arbitrator, Shri L.R. Sharma, District & Sessions Judge (Retd.), shall enter
into reference, and shall pass an award in accordance with law. The learned Arbitrator shall fix his fees in consultation with both the parties.
The arbitration petition is disposed off accordingly.