w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Polybond Organics Private Limited, Bengaluru v/s Era Infra Engineering Ltd.


Company & Directors' Information:- ERA INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED [Active] CIN = L74899DL1990PLC041350

Company & Directors' Information:- J R ORGANICS LIMITED [Active] CIN = L24119UP1964PLC003004

Company & Directors' Information:- ERA T & D LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40102DL2007PLC166052

Company & Directors' Information:- J T L INFRA LIMITED [Active] CIN = L27106CH1991PLC011536

Company & Directors' Information:- A V R ORGANICS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24239TG2006PTC049202

Company & Directors' Information:- R. K. INFRA & ENGINEERING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200TG2008PTC058861

Company & Directors' Information:- H N COMPANY INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201NL2005PTC007743

Company & Directors' Information:- R-3 ORGANICS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24114HR2002PLC034880

Company & Directors' Information:- N A R INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209TG2010PTC066556

Company & Directors' Information:- S N ORGANICS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U24243GJ2003PTC042493

Company & Directors' Information:- T AND T INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200PN2012PTC144893

Company & Directors' Information:- S B ORGANICS LTD [Active] CIN = U24110TG1988PLC008392

Company & Directors' Information:- S R C INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200KA2014PTC073052

Company & Directors' Information:- POLYBOND ORGANICS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U61100KA1993PTC014591

Company & Directors' Information:- S G F INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400JK2013PTC003837

Company & Directors' Information:- POLYBOND (INDIA) PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U25199MH1983PTC030558

Company & Directors' Information:- R E INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2007PTC175255

Company & Directors' Information:- M Y C INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400UP2013PTC055996

Company & Directors' Information:- A R INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45202AS2008PTC008561

Company & Directors' Information:- R K INFRA(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201KA2010PTC054009

Company & Directors' Information:- K K ORGANICS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15144UP1990PTC011617

Company & Directors' Information:- D AND D ORGANICS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1989PTC038433

Company & Directors' Information:- A P ORGANICS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15143PB1998PLC021323

Company & Directors' Information:- I V INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45309PB2008PTC031932

Company & Directors' Information:- D & S ORGANICS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18109WB2010PTC142557

Company & Directors' Information:- M & B INFRA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70109PB2012PLC036738

Company & Directors' Information:- S P S ORGANICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24211TZ2008PTC014790

Company & Directors' Information:- J. P. INFRA (BENGALURU) PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking off] CIN = U31900MH2007PTC177078

Company & Directors' Information:- N I INFRA ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400WB2010PTC153949

Company & Directors' Information:- A H INFRA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31501WB2010PLC155151

Company & Directors' Information:- ERA ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28998PN2012PTC145518

Company & Directors' Information:- M K ORGANICS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U24119HR1992PTC031822

Company & Directors' Information:- V & H INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45203MH2008PTC181787

Company & Directors' Information:- S R U INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102UP2014PTC065614

Company & Directors' Information:- S G U INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102UP2015PTC071682

Company & Directors' Information:- D S M ORGANICS PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1996PTC078366

Company & Directors' Information:- N. S. INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200UP2021PTC142424

Company & Directors' Information:- P P ORGANICS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24299HR2005PTC035790

Company & Directors' Information:- M G D INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400UP2015PTC069886

Company & Directors' Information:- K R D INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400TZ2020PTC034945

Company & Directors' Information:- I AND L INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45309AP2021PTC117723

Company & Directors' Information:- S D ORGANICS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24119GJ2003PTC043139

Company & Directors' Information:- R S ORGANICS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24119DL2004PTC125205

Company & Directors' Information:- D. C. ORGANICS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52300PN2011PTC141661

Company & Directors' Information:- Z INFRA LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201OR2009PLC010795

Company & Directors' Information:- S B M INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201TR2010PTC008299

Company & Directors' Information:- S INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U45201OR2012PTC016064

Company & Directors' Information:- J D C INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45209HR2012PTC045407

Company & Directors' Information:- S S P L INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201OR2011PTC013469

Company & Directors' Information:- Y. M. INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400MH2010PTC211055

Company & Directors' Information:- V V INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200TG2008PTC059111

Company & Directors' Information:- J B L ORGANICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U24129WB1998PTC087161

Company & Directors' Information:- R V G INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70200DL2011PTC219732

Company & Directors' Information:- K K ORGANICS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U24239TG1984PTC005074

Company & Directors' Information:- R R ORGANICS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999TG1988PTC008490

Company & Directors' Information:- S P G N INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200AP2015PTC096326

Company & Directors' Information:- Y. C. INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400WB2010PTC151352

Company & Directors' Information:- J K S INFRA (INDIA) LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209PB2012PLC036363

Company & Directors' Information:- J S N INFRA (INDIA) LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400UP2012PLC050189

Company & Directors' Information:- R V J INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200DL2013PTC249181

Company & Directors' Information:- J J INFRA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209AP2011PTC078174

Company & Directors' Information:- S M ORGANICS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24233HR1987PTC028337

Company & Directors' Information:- A R INFRA (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70109MP2007PTC020049

Company & Directors' Information:- G K V INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200PN2011PTC141814

Company & Directors' Information:- S AND H ORGANICS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U24232MP1998PTC012818

Company & Directors' Information:- P K ORGANICS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U24200TG1988PTC008218

Company & Directors' Information:- H V ORGANICS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U24200TG1988PTC008473

Company & Directors' Information:- C AND C ORGANICS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24239DL2004PTC130797

Company & Directors' Information:- M R K INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209TG2012PTC080558

Company & Directors' Information:- ERA PVT LTD [Converted to LLP] CIN = U51109WB1948PTC016572

Company & Directors' Information:- L G INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400TN2014PTC095310

Company & Directors' Information:- G. K. ORGANICS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U24233UP2010PTC039980

Company & Directors' Information:- S S A INFRA ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102UP2012PTC054304

Company & Directors' Information:- J G INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209CH2012PTC034095

Company & Directors' Information:- E & P INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL2014PTC271401

Company & Directors' Information:- T & T INFRA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70109DL2015PTC276336

Company & Directors' Information:- K T INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70200DL2010PTC199408

Company & Directors' Information:- A 4 INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70100DL2012PTC233921

Company & Directors' Information:- K & H INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209AP2013PTC090417

Company & Directors' Information:- C D E F INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200KA2011PTC057888

Company & Directors' Information:- M M D INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70101GJ2013PTC075444

Company & Directors' Information:- P M D INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201GJ2007PTC050762

Company & Directors' Information:- D A S ENGINEERING INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209MP2021PTC055768

Company & Directors' Information:- S D I ORGANICS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24299GJ2021PTC124589

Company & Directors' Information:- V & T INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70100TG2008PTC061671

    Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 47 of 2017

    Decided On, 03 August 2018

    At, High Court of Karnataka

    By, THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. DINESH MAHESHWARI

    For the Petitioner: M. Sudhakar, Pai, Advocate. For the Respondent: Azim Malik, Advocate.



Judgment Text

1. By way of this application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act of 1996'), the petitioner has made the request for appointment of Arbitrator to adjudicate upon and decide all its disputes with the respondent, arising out of, and relating to, the Work Order dated 8-12-2009.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent, being a contractor under the Airports Authority of India, entrusted him with the work of metal ceiling pertaining to Raipur Airport under Work Order dated 8-12-2009. Subsequent to the completion of project, dispute arose between the parties with regard to payment. Hence, the petitioner issued a notice on 5-1-2017 invoking the arbitration clause but the respondent did not take any step to constitute the Arbitration Panel.

3. It is submitted that in view of the respondent having failed to nominate the Arbitrator as per the agreement, this Court may appoint an independent Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties.

4. The existence of Arbitration Agreement is not denied by the respondent but then, it is contended that as per Clause 2.7 relating to 'Jurisdiction', the parties had agreed that only the Court at Delhi shall have jurisdiction in all the matters arising out of the Work Order in question and hence, this application is not maintainable before this Court at Bengaluru. The said Clause 2.7 reads as under:

"2.7 Jurisdiction.

(a) This Work Order is governed by the Indian Laws for time being in force. The Court of Delhi alone shall have exclusive jurisdiction in all matters arising out of this Work Order."

5. The learned Counsel for the respondent, with reference to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indus Mobile Distribution Private Limited v. Datawind Innovation Private Limited and Others, (2017) 7 SCC 678 and Swastik Gases Private Limited v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, (2013) 9 SCC 32 submits that such an exclusion clause in the agreement is valid and enforceable, and hence, the application of the present nature could have only been filed in the Court at Delhi.

6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that neither the parties are situated at Delhi nor even a part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts at Delhi. Hence, according to the learned Counsel, the said clause relating to the jurisdiction is rather redundant and in any case, is inapplicable to the present petition. The learned Counsel has referred to and relied upon an order dated 22-3-2017 passed by this Court in the case of M/s. Nagardas Kanji Shah v. M/s. Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Limited, C.M.P. No. 88 of 2016.

7. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having examined the record, this Court is clearly of the view that the objection regarding jurisdiction, as raised in this matter, sans merit and deserves to be rejected.

8. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Indus Mobile (supra) was rendered on the issue regarding jurisdiction under entirely different circumstances. Therein, the arbitration proceedings were conducted with the seat of arbitration being at Mumbai, though no part of cause of action had otherwise arisen at Mumbai.

9. Section 20 of the Act of 1996, clearly provides that the parties are free to agree on the place of arbitration and failing the agreement between the parties, the place of arbitration is to be determined by the Arbitral Tribunal. In view of the scheme of the Act of 1996 and in view of the departure therein from the classical concept of jurisdiction, the Supreme Court observed in the case of Indus Mobile (supra) as under:

"20. A conspectus of all the aforesaid provisions shows that the moment the seat is designated, it is akin to an exclusive jurisdiction clause. On the facts of the present case, it is clear that the seat of arbitration is Mumbai and Clause 19 further makes it clear that jurisdiction exclusively vests in the Mumbai Courts. Under the Law of Arbitration, unlike the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which applies to suits filed in Courts, a reference to "seat" is a concept by which a neutral venue can be chosen by the parties to an arbitration clause. The neutral venue may not in the classical sense have jurisdiction-that is, no part of the cause of action may have arisen at the neutral venue and neither would any of the provisions of Sections 16 to 21 of the CPC be attracted. In arbitration law however, as has been held above, the moment "seat" is determined, the fact that the seat is at Mumbai would vest Mumbai Courts with exclusive jurisdiction for purposes of regulating arbitral proceedings arising out of the agreement between the parties.

21. It is well-settled that where more than one Court has jurisdiction, it is open for parties to exclude all other Courts. For an exhaustive analysis of the case-law, see Swastik Gases Private Limited v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, (2013)9 SCC 32. This was followed in a recent judgment in B.E. Simoese Von Staraburg Niedenthal v. Chhattisgarh Investment Limited, (2015) 12 SCC 225. Having regard to the above, it is clear that Mumbai Courts alone have jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other Courts in the country, as the juridical seat of arbitration is at Mumbai. This being the case, the impugned judgment is set aside. The injunction confirmed by the impugned judgment will continue for a period of four weeks from the date of pronouncement of this judgment, so that the respondents may take necessary steps under Section 9 in the Mumbai Court. Appeals are disposed of accordingly."

(emphasis supplied)

10. The above quoted paragraphs make the position clear that in the case of Indus Mobile (supra), the Courts at Mumbai were held having jurisdiction essentially for the reason that the seat of arbitration had been at Mumbai. In the very context, the Supreme Court referred to the other settled principles that when more than one Court are having jurisdiction, it is open for the parties to exclude all but one of them.

11. Further, the position in the present case is that the matter is at the very initial stage and by way of this application, request is made for the appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act of 1996. It is not the case where arbitration has commenced and the parties have agreed to a particular seat or place for arbitration. Until such application is allowed, an Arbitrator is appointed, and the Arbitrator enters the reference, the principles enunciated in the case of Indus Mobile (supra) would not apply.

12. The decision in the case of Swastik Gases (supra) is essentially an authority on the principle that the use of expressions like 'alone', 'only', 'exclusive' etc., is not necessary in the exclusion clause to exclude the jurisdiction of the Court; and it is held that when the contract specifies the jurisdiction of a Court at a place, such Court will have jurisdiction and the inference is that the parties intended to exclude all other Courts. However, the significant feature had been that in the said case, the appellant did not dispute that part of cause of action had arisen in Kolkata. What the appellant contended was that the part of cause of action had also arisen in Jaipur and therefore, the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court or his designate Judge has jurisdiction to consider the application under Section 11 of the Act. This contention was rejected by the Supreme Court after finding that the parties had provided that their agreement shall be subject to jurisdiction of the Court at Kolkata; and such a clause was held to be of conferring the exclusive jurisdiction on the Courts at Kolkata. The fact that there was no dispute about the part of cause of action having arisen in Kolkata, is specifically noticed in the opening lines of paragraph 31 of the decision in Swastik Gases (supra), that read as under:

"31. In the instant case, the appellant does not dispute that part of cause of action has arisen in Kolkata. What appellant says is that part of cause of action has also arisen in Jaipur and, therefore, the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court or the designate Judge has jurisdiction to consider the application made by the appellant for the appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11......."

13. However, in the very same decision in Swastik Gases (supra), the subtle distinction is also indicated, of the cases where the parties provide for the jurisdiction of a particular Court, but if the said Court is otherwise having no jurisdiction then the clause remains unenforceable. This distinctive principle has been noticed by the Supreme Court with reference to its decision in the case of Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Limited and Another', (2005) 7 SCC 791, in the following:

"21. In Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Limited, the clause of the plot buyer agreement read: "Delhi High Court or Courts subordinate to it, alone shall have jurisdiction in all matters arising out of, touching and/or concerning this transaction". This Court held that the suit related to specific performance of the contract and possession of immovable property and the only Competent Court to try such suit was the Court where the property was situate and no other Court. Since the property was not situated in Delhi, the Delhi Court had no jurisdiction though the agreement provided for jurisdiction of the Court at Delhi. This Court found that the agreement conferring jurisdiction on a Court not having jurisdiction was not legal, valid and enforceable."

(emphasis supplied)

14. In view of the above, while enforcing the exclusion Clause 2.7 of the agreement of the parties, the first requirement is to examine the place of accrual of the cause of action, wholly or in part. This Court in CMP No. 88 of 2016 has indicated this aspect as follows:

"9. However, the position will be different in respect of a petition to be filed under Section 11 of the Act seeking appointment of an Arbitrator. The consideration of such petition will have to be made on various aspects by the Hon'ble Chief Justice or his designate as held in the case of Patel Engineering Limited (supra). Therefore, until the petition under Section 11 of the Act is allowed, the Arbitrator is appointed and the Arbitrator so appointed enters reference, the 'subject-matter of Arbitration' as enunciated in the case of Bharat Aluminium Company (supra) will not come into existence and the question of exercising supervisory jurisdiction will not arise. It is only after the subject-matter of the arbitration comes into existence and the arbitration proceeding commences or proposes to lines of paragraph 31 of the decision in Swastik Gases (supra), that read as under:

"31. In the instant case, the appellant does not dispute that part of cause of action has arisen in Kolkata. What appellant says is that part of cause of action has also arisen in Jaipur and, therefore, the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court or the designate Judge has jurisdiction to consider the application made by the appellant for the appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11......."

15. However, in the very same decision in Swastik Gases (supra), the subtle distinction is also indicated, of the cases where the parties provide for the jurisdiction of a particular Court, but if the said Court is otherwise having no jurisdiction then the clause remains unenforceable. This distinctive principle has been noticed by the Supreme Court with reference to its decision in the case of Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Limited and Another', (2005) 7 SCC 791, in the following:

"21. In Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Limited, the clause of the plot buyer agreement read: "Delhi High Court or Courts subordinate to it, alone shall have jurisdiction in all matters arising out of, touching and/or concerning this transaction". This Court held that the suit related to specific performance of the contract and possession of immovable property and the only Competent Court to try such suit was the Court where the property was situate and no other Court. Since the property was not situated in Delhi, the Delhi Court had no jurisdiction though the agreement provided for jurisdiction of the Court at Delhi. This Court found that the agreement conferring jurisdiction on a Court not having jurisdiction was not legal, valid and enforceable."

(emphasis supplied)

16. In view of the above, while enforcing the exclusion Clause 2.7 of the agreement of the parties, the first requirement is to examine the place of accrual of the cause of action, wholly or in part. This Court in CMP No. 88 of 2016 has indicated this aspect as follows:

"9. However, the position will be different in respect of a petition to be filed under Section 11 of the Act seeking appointment of an Arbitrator. The consideration of such petition will have to be made on various aspects by the Hon'ble Chief Justice or his designate as held in the case of Patel Engineering Limited (supra). Therefore, until the petition under Section 11 of the Act is allowed, the Arbitrator is appointed and the Arbitrator so appointed enters reference, the 'subject-matter of Arbitration' as enunciated in the case of Bharat Aluminium Company (supra) will not come into existence and the question of exercising supervisory jurisdiction will not arise. It is only after the subject-matter of the arbitration comes into existence and the arbitration proceeding commences or proposes to commence the supervisory control over such proceedings would arise. In such circumstance, the proceedings under Sections 9,34 and 37 of the Act, will arise and all proceedings relating to arbitration will be maintainable before the Court at the place where it is only the seat of arbitration. If the same principle is made applicable to the proceedings under Section 11 of the Act, it will amount to the situation of putting the cart before the horse since that Court will not have territorial jurisdiction before an Arbitrator is appointed as such proceeding will be an original proceeding. The crucial test therefore to determine whether there is territorial jurisdiction for a Court to entertain a petition under Section 11 of the Act is the same as determining whether there will be territorial jurisdiction to entertain a civil suit based on the place of cause of action as on the date of the petition. If a civil suit is not maintainable based on such test, a petition under Section 11 of the Act also will not be maintainable."

(emphasis supplied)

In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner-company is situated at Bengaluru in the State of Karnataka whereas, the respondent-company is situated at Noida in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The respondent issued the Work Order in question on 8-12-2009 from Noida to the petitioner at Bengaluru. The work in question, of metal ceiling of Airport was to be executed at Raipur in the State of Chhattisgarh. This Court is unable to find any fact or factor, which may show that even a fraction of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Courts at Delhi. That being the position, this Court finds substance in the submissions of the Counsel for the petitioner that the jurisdiction clause in the Work Order in question is of no avail as the parties, by their agreement, cannot confer jurisdiction on a Court which is otherwise not having any jurisdiction over the matter.

In other words, no part of cause of action having arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Delhi, it cannot be said that only the Court at Delhi shall have jurisdiction to deal with the application under Section 11 of the Act of 1996.

On the other hand, where it appears that the Work Order in question was accepted by the petitioner at Bengaluru, accrual of a part of cause of action at Bengamru cannot be denied. That being the position, the objection regarding the jurisdiction stands rejected. "

17. The limited aspect required to be considered in this application now is, as to whether there exists an arbitration agreement between the parties?

18. In fact, the existence of arbitration agreement in this matter is apparent on the face of the record. The arbitration clause, being Clause 2.6 in the Work Order, reads as under:

"2.6 (a) Any disputes arising out of this Contract shall be referred to the sole Arbitrator i.e. Managing Director of Era Infra Engineering Limited who may further appoint any person not below the rank of General Manager and there shall be no objection if Arbitrator so appointed is an employee of Era Infra Engineering Limited.

In case the Arbitrator to whom the matter is originally referred get transferred or vacates his office or unable to act for any reason as aforesaid at the time of such transfer, vacation of office or inability to act, Managing Director, EIEL shall appoint another person to act as Sole Arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996."

19. From the material placed on record, it is evident that the petitioner issued notice proposing for appointment of Arbitrator but the respondent did not respond to the said notice and did not take steps for appointment of Arbitrator as required by the

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

aforesaid arbitration agreement between the parties. 20. When the parties stand at conflict and the disputes do exist, which have not been resolved; and for the reason of failure of the procedure for appointment of Arbitrator, it is just and proper that an independent Arbitrator be appointed to adjudicate upon and decide the disputes between the parties, including their claims, counterclaims and objections. 21. Now, learned Counsel for the parties have fairly agreed to the appointment of a Former Judge of this Court, namely, Hon'ble Sri Justice K.N. Keshavanarayana to act as an Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties under the provisions of the Act of 1996, as per the Rules governing the Arbitration Centre at Bengaluru. 22. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of by appointing Hon'ble Sri Justice K.N. Keshavanarayana, a Former Judge of this Court, to enter into the said reference and to act as an Arbitrator in the present case in the Arbitration Centre, Bengaluru, as per the Rules governing the said Arbitration Centre. 23. In the interest of justice, it is made clear that the Arbitrator shall adjudicate upon and decide all the disputes between the parties including their claims, counterclaims and objections relating to the agreement in question. The requirements of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [as amended by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015], shall be complied with by all the concerned. 24. Needless to observe that all the questions arising between the parties in this matter shall remain open for determination in the arbitration proceedings. A copy of this order be sent to the Arbitration Centre, Khanija Bhavan, Bengaluru, for proceeding further in the matter on administrative side and also to Hon'ble Sri Justice K.N. Keshavanarayana, on the address available with the said Arbitration Centre, Bengaluru.
O R