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
12 paragraphs · 502 wordsH. Billappa, J.—The petitioner has filed this petition u/s 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying to appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents. It is stated, the petitioner and the respondents have entered into an agreement dated 9.1.2007. The petitioner has completed the work and submitted final bill dated 21.6.2010 to settle the claim of Rs. 3,62,82,966.46. Thereafter, the petitioner has sent letters dated 12.8.2010, 18.5.2011, 10.8.2011, 20.12.2011 and 12.1.2012 to settle the claim. In spite of that, the respondents have not taken any action to settle the claim. Therefore, the petitioner has sent legal notice dated 19.4.2012 invoking Arbitration Clause. The respondents have not responded. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed for appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent.
The respondents have not filed any objections to the petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has submitted the final bill dated 21.6.2010 and thereafter, has sent remainders to settle the claim and there is no response from the respondents. Therefore, an Arbitrator may be appointed to adjudicate the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported Deep Trading Company Vs. Indian Oil Corporation and Others, .
As against this, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that unless final claim is submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner cannot invoke the Arbitration Clause. Therefore, the petition may be dismissed.
I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
The point that arises for my consideration is;
Whether an Arbitrator needs to be appointed?
The petitioner and the respondents have entered into an agreement dated 9.1.2007 as per Annexure-A. The petitioner contends that it has completed the work and submitted final bill dated 21.6.2010 as per Annexure-F. Annexure ''E'' is the covering letter. In spite of several reminders the respondents have not taken any steps to settle the claim. Therefore, the petitioner has sent legal notice dated 19.4.2012 invoking Arbitration Clause. The respondents have not responded to it. There is a live dispute to be resolved. Therefore, it is necessary to appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Shri Subhash T. Gogi, Retd. District Judge, ''KRISHNA'' No. 45 (Old No. 369), 8th Cross, II Block, RMV II Stage, Bangalore-94 is appointed as an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents arising out of the agreement dated 9.1.2007. The parties shall be governed by the Rules of Arbitration Centre, Bangalore, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and relevant rules.
Registry is directed to communicate this order to Shri Subhash T. Gogi, Retd. District Judge and also the Arbitration Centre, Bangalore, for further action.
The parties shall appear before the Arbitration Centre, Bangalore, on the date to be fixed.
Office is directed to return the originals documents to the learned counsel for the petitioner.