Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Octavo Solution Pvt. L.T.D Vs Principal Secy, Cum… — Arbitration | Orissa HC (2022)

Home
Orissa HC
2022
Octavo Solution Pvt. L.T.D Vs Principal Secy, Cum CoOctavo Solution Pvt. L.T.D v. Principal Secy, Cum Commnr,Pan

Allowed

Octavo Solution Pvt. L.T.D v. Principal Secy, Cum Commnr,Panchayat Raj and Drinking Water Dept.

Orissa HC25 Mar 2022ARBP/62/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa appointed Mr. Justice Pramath Patnaik as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from an MoU dated 25th January, 2016, under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Mr. Justice Pramath Patnaik as the sole Arbitrator under the aegis of the High Court of Orissa Arbitration Centre.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appointment of Mr. Justice Pramath Patnaik as the sole Arbitrator under the aegis of the High Court of Orissa Arbitration Centre.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. +1 more

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

In an arbitration petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the High Court appointed Mr. Justice Pramath Patnaik as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between the Petitioner and the Respondents arising from a Memorandum of Understanding, dismissing objections regarding the arbitration clause.

A compact analysis

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.

A

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

ARBP No.62 of 2021

Octavo-Solution Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi …. Petitioner

Mr. Kamal Behari Panda, Advocate -versus-

…. Principal Secretary-cumOpposite Parties Commissioner, Government of Odisha and others

Mr. S. N. Das, ASC for Opposite Party 1 and Mr. S. S. Mohanty, Advocate for Opposite Parties 2 and 3

CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE

ORDER 25.03.2022

Order No.

Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

The present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) seeks the appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the Petitioner and the Opposite Parties arising out of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 25^th January, 2016 under the Aajeevika State Skills Mission (ASSM), known as DDU-DKY between the parties.

The Court has already held in its order dated 11^th March, 2022 in Arbitration Petition No.48 of 2021 that an identical clause as Clause8 is in fact an Arbitration clause and, therefore, the dispute between the parties can be referred to arbitration.

Page 1 of 2

Consequently, the Court disagrees with the objection raised by the Opposite Parties here that the aforementioned clause is not in fact an Arbitration clause.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the Court appoints Mr. Justice Pramath Patnaik , former judge of this Court as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties including the claims and counter claims. The arbitration shall take place under the aegis of the High Court of Orissa Arbitration Centre.

The arbitration petition is disposed of accordingly. A copy of this order be communicated to the Coordinator, Orissa Arbitration Centre and the learned Arbitrator forthwith.

M. Panda

(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice

Page 2 of 2

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the Court should appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2.
Whether an objection against a clause being an arbitration clause should be accepted.

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Arbitration and Conciliation Act11(6)

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Octavo-Solution Pvt. Ltd.
respondent
Principal Secretary-cum Commissioner, Government of Odisha
respondent
Government of Odisha and others

Coram

AI extract

Dr. S. Muralidhar

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Orissa HC
Decided on: 25 Mar 2022 · March
Registered: 29 Oct 2021
Case no.: ARBP/62/2021
CNR: ODHC010726642021
Topic: Arbitration
Bench: S. Muralidhar CJ
Disposal: Disposed Off

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from S. Muralidhar CJ

Suresh Ranjan Sahu Vs Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd.
11 Mar 2022
M/S. Surya Wires Private Ltd. Vs Odisha Rural Development and Marketing Society
11 Mar 2022
Fortune Infra Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pusparani Tripathy
11 Mar 2022
M/S Varsha Construction Vs Cmd,Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Limited
25 Mar 2022
M/S Puri Construction Vs Puri Municipal Council
25 Mar 2022
Nihar Ranjan Panda Vs Smt.Anita Raj Kar
25 Mar 2022

Cite this judgement

Octavo Solution Pvt. L.T.D v. Principal Secy, Cum Commnr,Panchayat Raj and Drinking Water Dept., ARBP/62/2021 (OD), decided on 25 March 2022.

The High Court of Orissa publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Arbitration and Conciliation Act11(6)

View all statutes

Bench / Coram

Dr. S. Muralidhar

Parties & counsel