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
13 paragraphs · 229 wordsSudhanshu Dhulia, J
Present arbitration petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an
Arbitrator. 2. Petitioner and the respondent entered into a license agreement for a shop situated in Dehradun. Now, some dispute has arisen between
the parties regarding payment of license. Since admittedly there is an arbitration clause in the said agreement and since the respondent has not taken
any step for appointment of Arbitrator, the petitioner has filed the present petition.   Â
Learned Counsels for both the parties have no objection if the Arbitrator is appointed to adjudicate the present dispute. This Court has further been
informed that in a connected matter, Sri Kanta Prasad, retired District Judge from the cadre of Uttarakhand Higher Judicial Services, has been
appointed Arbitrator by this Court to adjudicate similar disputes. Both the parties suggest the name of same person for being appointed as Arbitrator to
adjudicate the present dispute as well.  Â
In view of the above and subject to the disclosure under Section 11(8) read with Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Sri Kanta
Prasad, retired District Judge from Uttarakhand Higher Judicial Services is appointed as the Arbitrator in the matter to adjudicate the dispute between
the parties. Â
Arbitration petition stands disposed of accordingly. Â