Nobel Biocare India Private Limited v. Hitendra Kumar Kushwaha Sole Proprietor of Hap Dental
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – S.11 application for appointment of arbitrator – scope of S.11 enquiry
Case brief
What is this about?
Bombay HC (OOCJ), Arb. Appl. 90/2025 (Somasekhar Sundaresan J., 10.09.2025): allowed Nobel Biocare India Pvt Ltd's Section 11 application against Hitendra Kumar Kushwaha (proprietor, Hap Dental); following In re Interplay (2024) 6 SCC 1, SBI General v. Krish Spinning and Ajay Madhusudan Patel, held S.11 review confined to existence of a validly executed arbitration agreement, substantive questions reserved to tribunal under S.16; Presolv360 (ODR) directed to appoint sole arbitrator, online proceedings, costs shared equally at first instance, seat per Agreement, merits open.
What did the court decide?
Application disposed of in the Applicant's favour: Presolv360 directed to appoint a sole arbitrator for the disputes under the Agreement and administer the arbitration, preferably within two weeks of receipt of the order; proceedings to be conducted online through electronic mode unless otherwise agreed; parties to communicate a copy of the order and contact particulars to Presolv360 within one week; communications to provided email addresses constitute valid service; arbitral costs and fees borne equally by the parties in the first instance, subject to the Tribunal's final award on costs; seat deemed the same as discernible from the Agreement, with arbitration primarily conducted online.