Nandau S/o Rulla Baiga vs Rajan @ Rajendra Kumar & Ors

This application is filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called as ''Act'') with a prayer to appoint a sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties in terms of purchase order.

Nobody entered appearance on behalf of the respondent. As per office note dated 25-01-2016, notices are treated to be served on the respondent. In addition, Shri Harpreet Singh Ruprah, learned counsel for the applicant contended that the respondent is served by ''Dasti'' service and affidavit of service has already been filed.

Learned counsel for the applicant relied on Clause 22 of the purchase order, which deals with arbitration. It is submitted that the applicant has fulfilled all the formalities but the respondent has not appointed the Arbitrator. Hence, the powers under Section 11 (6) of the Act may be exercised. He placed reliance on the judgments of Supreme Court in the case of (2000) 8 SCC 151 ( Datar Switchgears Ltd. vs. Tata Finance Ltd. & Anr.), (2006) SCC 638 (Punj Llloyd Ltd. vs. Petronet MHB Ltd.) and (2013) 4 SCC 35 (Deep Trading Company vs. Indian Oil Corporation & Ors.).

As noticed above, nobody appeared for the other side.

I have heard the applicant at length and perused the record.

Clause 22 of the Purchase Order reads as under:- 22. Arbitration

The parties hereby agree that all disputes and differences and/or claims arising out of/or connected with this purchase order, or as to the rights & liabilities of the parties hereunder, failing an amicable settlement, shall be referred to arbitration of sole arbitrator of a person to be appointed by the Managing Director of ADNRITZ Hydro Pvt. Ltd. The arbitration shall be governed by Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 or any statuary amendment/modification thereof for the time being in force. The venue of arbitration shall be Mandideep, District Raisen (M.P.)"

(Emphasis supplied)

The application shows that despite demand, no arbitrator has been appointed. The applicant''s request dated 27-01-2014 (Annexure A/3) and 09- 01-2015 (Annexure A/4) went in vain. I am satisfied that the applicant has shown that necessary ingredients for invoking Section 11 (6) of the Act are available in the present application. In addition, alongwith covering memo filed on 02-01-2017, the applicant has filed the consent of Mrs. Renu Sharma, Retired District Judge, Bhopal to act as an Arbitrator. Accordingly, I deem it proper to appoint her as an arbitrator in the present case.

Resultantly, Mrs. Renu Sharma, Retired District Judge is appointed as an Arbitrator in the present case. Parties are directed to approach the Arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute. Needless to mention that learned Arbitrator will be free to decide her fees.

The application is allowed. No cost