Allowed

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

Bombay HC8 Oct 2010ARBAP/25/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment appoints a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for a dispute regarding a building water proofing contract. The court held that the right to appoint an arbitrator is forfeited once a Section 11(6) application is instituted in Court.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Shri Justice B.N. Naik, Former Judge of this Court, as the sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Mahendra Realtors and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Executive… — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2010)

ARBAP25-8.10

PNP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

O. O. C. J.

¶6

ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO.25 OF 2010

¶7

M/s. Mehendra Realtors & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

¶8

..Applicant.

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Executive Director (IP) M/s.Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd.

¶11

..Respondent.

¶12

....

¶13

Mr. Toni Sachdevani for the Applicant.

¶14

Mr. Kunal Damale with Mr. N.S. Davare i/b Udwadia & Udeshi for the Respondent.

¶15

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

¶16

8 October 2010.

¶17

P.C . :

¶18

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

¶19

Conciliation Act, 1996. The Applicant was awarded a contract for water proofing of a building of the Respondent by a work order dated 30 July

¶20

The work order contains an arbitration agreement in the following terms :

¶21

“Arbitration

¶22

Any dispute or difference arising under this contract shall be referred for adjudication at Mumbai to a sole arbitrator to be appointed by the Executive Director (IP), Balmer Lawrie & Co.

ARBAP25-8.10

PNP

Ltd. and the provisions of Arbitration proceedings as per Arbitration Act 1996 shall be applicable. The fees of the arbitrator, if any, shall be paid equally by both the parties.”

¶27

Disputes arose between the parties and on 21 September 2009

¶28

the Applicant raised a claim and invoked the arbitration agreement. By its reply dated 30 October 2009 the Respondent alleged that there were no disputes and differences and that hence there was no occasion to concur in the appointment of an arbitrator. The Applicant issued a further notice of demand on 9 November 2009 followed by a reminder of 3 December 2009. There was no response to either of these notices.

¶29

At the hearing of the application, counsel appearing on behalf

¶30

of the Respondent has submitted that in terms of the arbitration agreement, the Respondent is ready and willing to nominate a sole arbitrator.

¶31

Now it is well settled that under Section 11(6) no specific

¶32

period of limitation has been prescribed within which a party to whom a notice invoking arbitration is addressed is to appoint an arbitrator. The opposite party is entitled to appoint an arbitrator but once an application

ARBAP25-8.10

PNP

under Section 11(6) is filed in Court, the right to do so of the opposite party stands forfeited (Datar Switchgears Ltd. v. Tata Finance Ltd.¹ ). In the circumstances, at this stage upon the institution of an arbitration application under Section 11(6), there is no reason to accept the contention of the Respondent.

¶37

The existence of the arbitration agreement is not in dispute.

¶38

The agreement was executed in Mumbai and the contract was to be performed at Mumbai. The arbitration agreement has been validly invoked. In the circumstances, this application is disposed of by appointing Shri Justice B.N. Naik, Former Judge of this Court as sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶39

The Prothonotary and Senior Master is directed to forthwith communicate a copy of this order to the Learned Arbitrator together with a memorandum containing the address of the parties.

¶40

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

¶41

1 (2000) 8 SCC 151.

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

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.

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

Credence Logistics Ltd. Vs Dharti Dredging and Infrastructure Ltd.