Admirecon Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs Kuber Kartik New Link Road Premises Co-Op Society Ltd.

This Application has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( “the Act” ), seeking appointment of an arbitrator in connection with disputes and differences that are said to have arisen between the parties under an Agreement dated August 23, 2018 which is annexed at Exhibit “C” of this Application. The arbitration agreement is contained in Clause 31 read with Clause 51 (found at Page Nos. 41 and 88 of the Application). In the interest of brevity, the arbitration agreement is not being extracted here. Suffice it to say that this matter falls within the jurisdiction of this Court.

¶11

Page 1 of 5 March 17, 2025

¶12

518. CARAP 91-2024 (Prod) VK edit.docx

¶13

It is seen from the record that the arbitration was validly invoked on December 10, 2020, to which there is a reply dated January 8, 2021 by the Respondent. The reply affidavit on behalf of the Respondent does not dispute the existence of the arbitration agreement but submits that the dispute is not arbitrable. A plain reading of the arbitration agreement does not suggest that such a dispute was not meant to be covered by the arbitration agreement between the parties.

¶14

The scope of review under Section 11 is explicitly set out in Section 11(6A) of the Act. It is now trite law, with particular regard to the decisions of a seven-judge Bench in the Interplay Judgement¹ followed by multiple others, including SBI General² and Patel³ that the Section 11 Court ought not to venture beyond examining the existence of a validly existing arbitration agreement that has been formally executed. Even questions of existential substance is a matter that falls squarely in the domain of the arbitral tribunal, in view of Section 16 of the Act.

¶15

Being satisfied that an arbitration agreement is validly in

¶16

1 In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements Under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899 – (2024) 6 SCC 1

¶17

2 SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning – 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754

¶18

3 Ajay Madhusudan Patel v. Jyotrindra S. Patel – 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2597

¶19

Page 2 of 5

¶20

March 17, 2025

¶21

518. CARAP 91-2024 (Prod) VK edit.docx

¶22

existence, and that arbitration has been duly invoked, it is in the fitness of things to refer the disputes and differences between the parties in connection with the aforesaid Agreement dated August 23, 2018 to arbitration by a Sole Arbitrator.

¶23

In these circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by keeping this Section 11 Application pending any further on the docket of this Court. This Section 11 Application is finally disposed of , in terms of the following order:

¶24

A] Mr. Kunal Katariya, a learned advocate of this Court, is hereby appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes and differences between the parties arising out of and in connection with the Agreement referred to above;

¶25

Office Address : 401, Embassy Centre, Jamnalal Bajaj Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. Email ID : [email protected]

¶26

B] A copy of this Order will be communicated to the Learned Sole Arbitrator by the Advocates for the Applicant within a period of one week from the date on which this order is uploaded on the website of this Court. The

¶27

Page 3 of 5 March 17, 2025

¶28

518. CARAP 91-2024 (Prod) VK edit.docx

¶29

Applicant shall provide the contact and communication particulars of the parties to the Arbitral Tribunal along with a copy of this Order;

¶30

C] The Learned Sole Arbitrator is requested to forward the statutory Statement of Disclosure under Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1) of the Act to the Advocates for the Applicant so as to enable them to file the same in the Registry of this Court. The Registry of this Court shall retain the said Statement on the file of this Application and a copy of the same shall be furnished by the Advocates for the Applicant to the Respondent;

¶31

D] The parties shall appear before the Learned Sole Arbitrator on such date and at such place as indicated, to obtain appropriate directions with regard to conduct of the arbitration including fixing a schedule for pleadings, examination of witnesses, if any, schedule of hearings etc. At such meeting, the parties shall provide a valid and functional email address along with mobile and landline numbers of the respective Advocates of the parties to the Arbitral Tribunal. Communications to such email addresses shall constitute valid service of correspondence in connection with the arbitration;

¶32

E] All arbitral costs and fees of the Arbitral Tribunal shall be borne by the parties equally in the first instance, and shall be subject to any final Award that may be passed

¶33

Page 4 of 5 March 17, 2025

¶34

518. CARAP 91-2024 (Prod) VK edit.docx

¶35

by the Tribunal in relation to costs.

¶36

Needless to say, nothing contained in this order is an expression of an opinion on merits of the matter or the relative strength of the parties. All issues on merits are expressly kept open to be agitated before the arbitral tribunal appointed hereby.

¶37

All actions required to be taken pursuant to this order shall be taken upon receipt of a downloaded copy as available on this Court’s website.

¶38

[ SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.]

¶39

Page 5 of 5 March 17, 2025

Admirecon Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Kuber Kartik New Link Road Premises Co-Op Society Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Admirecon Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Kuber Kartik New Link Road Premises Co-Op Society Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Gurdip Singh Joginder Singh Bhatti vs Bhairavi Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.

Khimji Lakhamshi Shah vs Kalpana Rajendra Gonjari

Aditya Birla Finance Limited vs Navneet Gupta

Punjab National Bank vs Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Nobel Biocare India Private Limited vs Trinathkar Sole Proprietor of The Bug

Coventya India Private Limited vs Shree Ganesh Enterprises