The petitioner filed a petition for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the respondent. The court dismissed the petition, ruling it misconceived since there was no arbitration agreement between the parties.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ARBP No. 41 of 2024
SOURAV SEKHAR BEHERA …. Petitioner
Sourav Sekhar Behera (in person)
-versus-
…. Nilesh Badgujar, AUTOONE ENGG. Opposite Party SERVICES, Maharastra
CORAM:
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
ORDER
Order No.
11.09.2024
arbitrator under Section 11 (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
as there is no agreement between the parties to the effect that the dispute if any shall be resolved through the process of arbitration
under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh) Chief Justice
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Designation: ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 19-Sep-2024 11:32:46 Arun Mishra
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator is maintainable in the absence of an arbitration agreement.
Whether there is an agreement between the parties to resolve disputes through arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sourav Sekhar Behera
Nilesh Badgujar, AUTOONE ENGG. Opposite Party SERVICES, Maharastra
Chakradhari Sharan Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
