Arbitration petition under Section 11(6) seeking appointment of an arbitrator; after filing, a unilateral appointment was made and an award passed, challenged in separate proceedings. The petition was disposed of as infructuous with the petitioner's rights to challenge the appointment reserved.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1/1 6 ARP 82-21.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION No. 82 OF 2021
Jaichand B. Mahala
.. petitioner
Versus
Rakhe A. Punia .. Respondent
Mr. Gaurav Parkar for the petitioner. Mr.Ranabir Datta for the respondent.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATED : 22nd JANUARY 2024
P.C:-
1 Learned counsel for the respondent, in response to an application seeking appointment of Arbitrator in terms of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, submit that after the application was filed, the Arbitrator is appointed though the counsel for the applicant contend that it was an unilateral appointment. However, subsequently, he has passed an award and a challenge is raised in different proceedings to the said Award.
In wake of the above, by reserving all the rights and contentions of the petitioner open, to raise a challenge to the appointment of the Arbitrator, the present Petition having been rendered infructuous stand disposed off.
( SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
Tilak
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Section 11(6) petition survives given the respondent's subsequent unilateral appointment of an arbitrator and the passing of an award.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jaichand B. Mahala
Rakhe A. Punia
Bharati Dangre
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
