Allowed¶19

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Ms Guru Kripa Filling Station and Ors.

Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Aug 2025ARB/27/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, ARB-27-2025, decided 21.08.2025 (Jagmohan Bansal, J.) — Section 11(6) Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 application by Indian Oil Corporation Limited against M/s Guru Kripa Filling Station allowed; Sole Arbitrator (Ms. Anjali Kukar, Advocate) appointed; arbitration agreement dated 30.03.2021; dispute amount Rs. 9 lakhs; fee per Fourth Schedule; Section 29-A timeline; first appearance 04.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Ms. Anjali Kukar, Advocate as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties, subject to statutory compliance; parties to appear before her first on 04.09.2025 at 10:00 AM. ¶19

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs Ms Guru Kripa Filling… — Arbitration | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should appoint an Arbitrator on the applicant's application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The conditions to invoke the power conferred by Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act stand satisfied, and the Court accordingly appoints a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

¶19

Key takeaways

Ms. Anjali Kukar, Advocate is appointed as Sole Arbitrator subject to compliance of statutory requirements, and the Arbitrator is required to comply with the mandate of Section 12 of the 1996 Act before proceeding further.ratio¶20
The parties remain at liberty to raise all claims, defences, counter-claims and pleas before the Arbitrator, and any observation made in the order will not bind the learned Arbitrator.obiter¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Arbitration — Appointment of Arbitrator — Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Indian Oil Corporation Limited applied for appointment of an Arbitrator citing an arbitration agreement dated 30.03.2021; notice seeking resolution of the dispute through an Arbitral Tribunal went unheeded. With no representation for the respondents on the date of decision, the Court held that the conditions to invoke the power under Section 11(6) stood satisfied and appointed Ms. Anjali Kukar, Advocate as Sole Arbitrator, subject to compliance with statutory requirements including the Section 12 disclosure mandate. Parties were directed to appear before the Arbitrator on 04.09.2025; fees per the Fourth Schedule; proceedings within the Section 29-A time limit; parties free to raise all claims, defences and counter-claims, with observations in the order not binding on the Arbitrator. Disputed amount: Rs. 9 lakhs.

¶1

ARB-27-2025

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

248 ARB-27-2025 Date of Decision: 21.08.2025

¶5

Indian Oil Corporation Limited …Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s Guru Kripa Filling Station and others …Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

¶9

Present: - Mr. Karamjit Singh, Advocate for Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate for the applicant

¶10

None for the respondent ***

¶11

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J . (Oral)

¶12

Through instant application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘ 1996 Act ’), the applicant is seeking appointment of an Arbitrator.

¶13

On the last date of hearing, partner of respondent-firm appeared, however, today there is no representation on of the respondents. Considering the limited prayer for appointment of an Arbitrator who ultimately would adjudicate rights and liabilities of the parties and the amount involved (₹ 9 Lakhs), it is not advisable to keep the matter pending. Thus, this Court is left with no other option except to adjudicate the case on the basis of available record.

¶14

The parties entered into arbitration agreement dated 30.03.2021.

¶15

A dispute erupted between the parties. The applicant served notice upon the respondent seeking resolution of dispute through Arbitral Tribunal but to no

¶16

avail. MOHIT KUMAR 2025.08.21 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶17

-2-

¶18

ARB-27-2025

¶19

Conditions to invoke power conferred by Section 11(6) of 1996 Act stand satisfied, thus, I hereby appoint a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

¶20

Ms. Anjali Kukar, Advocate, residing at Flat No. 7, Angel Apartments, Zirakpur, Mobile No. 9814214144 is hereby appointed as a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties, subject to compliance of statutory requirements. The learned Arbitrator is requested to comply with mandate of Section 12 of 1996 Act before proceeding further.

¶21

The parties at the first instance will appear before the Arbitrator on 04.09.2025 at 10:00 AM and thereafter, as directed by learned Arbitrator.

¶22

The Arbitrator shall be paid fee in accordance with the Fourth Schedule of the 1996 Act, as amended.

¶23

The Arbitrator is requested to complete the proceedings as per time limit specified under Section 29-A of the 1996 Act.

¶24

Needless to mention, parties would be at liberty to raise all the claims/defences/counter claims/pleas before the Arbitrator. Any observation made hereinabove will not be binding on the learned Arbitrator.

¶25

A request letter along with copy of this order be sent to Ms. Anjali Kukar, Advocate.

¶26

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE

¶27

21.08.2025

¶28

Mohit Kumar

¶29

Whether speaking/reasoned	Yes/No
Whether reportable	Yes/No

¶30

MOHIT KUMAR 2025.08.21 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Ms Guru Kripa Filling Station and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Ms Guru Kripa Filling Station and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Prp Marketing Vs M/S Life Essentials Personal Cares Pvt. Ltd. and Others

Gurmeet Kaur Vs Chandigarh Administration and Others

Amit Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Another

Rathi and Co. through Its Proprietor Mr Kuber Rathi Vs Celebrity Biopharma Limited

Rathi and Co. through Its Proprietor Mr Kuber Rathi Vs Aishwarya Healthcare

Raghav Gupta Vs Vsr Infrastech Pvt. Ltd. and Others