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
6 paragraphs · 255 wordsVipin Sanghi, CJ
The applicant has preferred the present Application, under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to seek an appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement contained in the Agreement for sale dated 27.10.2018 entered into between the parties.
The Arbitration Agreement is contained in Clause-15 of the said Agreement for sale dated 27th October, 2018. It provides that if there is any dispute between the vendor and purchaser arising out of the Agreement, the same shall be adjudicated by reference to the arbitration of two independent arbitrators, one to be appointed by each party, who shall appoint an umpire.
The Arbitration Agreement was invoked by the applicant on 18.11.2021. However, the parties have not been able to mutually appoint the Arbitrator and, consequently, this Application has been preferred.
The learned counsel for the respondent has produced her Vakalatnama, which is taken on record. On instructions, she states that the respondent is agreeable to appointment of a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute the between the parties. She submits that the venue of arbitration may, however, be fixed at Dehradun, since the property in question is situated in Dehradun.
In view of the aforesaid, the Application is allowed. I appoint Mr. Shri K.D. Bhatt, retired District Judge, R/o House No. 297, Lane No. 5, Madhur Vihar, Ajabpur, Dehradun, to act as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute, whichever is there between the parties, under the Agreement for sale dated 27th October, 2018.