Allowed

Schenker India Pvt. Ltd. v. Hypercity Retail (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Bombay HC8 Oct 2010ARBAP/24/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This was an arbitration application for appointing a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, where the court appointed Dr. Justice B.P. Saraf as the arbitrator and permitted the respondent to raise a counter claim subject to the arbitrator's decision on arbitrability.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Dr. Justice B.P. Saraf as sole arbitrator and liberty to the respondent to raise a counter claim.

Schenker India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Hypercity Retail (India) Pvt. Ltd. — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2010)

ARBAP24-8.10

PNP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

O. O. C. J.

¶6

ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO.24 OF 2010

¶7

Schenker India Private Limited Vs.

¶8

Hypercity Retail (India) Private Limited

¶9

..Applicant.

¶10

..Respondent.

¶11

.... Mr. Ranbir Krishan and Mr. K.G. Singhania i/b Singhania & Co. for the Applicant.

¶12

Mr. Karl Shroff with Ms. Ranju Yadav i/b Dhru & Co. for the Respondent.

¶13

CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.

¶14

8 October 2010.

¶15

P.C . :

¶16

This is an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and

¶17

Conciliation Act, 1996. On 24 July 2007 the Applicant and the Respondent

¶18

entered into a warehousing agreement under which the Applicant was to provide certain services to the Respondent. The claim of the Applicant

¶19

arises out of the agreement and according to the Applicant its dues between July 2007 and May 2008 were not paid. By a notice dated 20

¶20

October 2009 the Applicant raised a claim in the amount of Rs.4.08 Crores

¶21

and called upon the Respondent to agree upon the appointment of an

ARBAP24-8.10

PNP

arbitrator. The Respondent not having concurred in the appointment of a sole arbitrator, the Arbitration Application has been instituted. The Respondent has raised a counter claim on 30 January 2010.

¶26

At the hearing of the Application, counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent has no objection to the appointment of an arbitrator, but submits that the Respondent should also be permitted to raise its counter claim, if any before the arbitral tribunal.

¶27

The existence of the arbitration agreement is not in dispute. The agreement between the parties was entered into at Mumbai. In the circumstances, the Arbitration Application is disposed of by appointing Dr. Justice B.P. Saraf, Former Chief Justice of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court as sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes and differences between the parties arising out of the agreement dated 24 July 2007. The Respondent would be at liberty to raise a counter claim, if any. The issue as to arbitrability of the counter claim is kept open to be urged before and decided by the Arbitrator.

¶28

The Prothonotary and Senior Master is directed to forthwith

ARBAP24-8.10

PNP

communicate a copy of this order to the Learned Arbitrator together with a memorandum containing the address of the parties.

¶33

(Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, J.)

Schenker India Pvt. Ltd. v. Hypercity Retail (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Schenker India Pvt. Ltd. v. Hypercity Retail (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Government of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Karveer Kamgar Sangh and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs Gunda Pandurang Kamble and Ors.

Anupam Engineers Vs Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd.

Bhupendra D. Goradia Vs Alfa-E-Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Mahendra Realtors and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Executive Director (Ip), Balmer Lawrie and Co. Ltd.

Credence Logistics Ltd. Vs Dharti Dredging and Infrastructure Ltd.