Allowed

Santosh Kumar Sexena S/O Late Shri K.N. Saxena v. M/S Shree Sidhi Vinayak Society

Rajasthan HC27 Jan 2023ARBAP/45/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this arbitration application, the High Court allowed the applicant's petition for appointment of an arbitrator under Sections 8 and 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, following valid notice and finding the agreement clause invocable. The Court appointed Mr. Kunj Bihari Katta as the sole arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Mr. Kunj Bihari Katta, Retired District Judge, appointed as sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute.

Santosh Kumar Sexena S/O Late Shri K.N. Saxena Vs M/S… — Specific Performance | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/000639]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Arbitration Application No. 45/2021

¶4

Santosh Kumar Sexena S/o Late Shri K.n. Saxena, Aged About 70 Years, Resident Of 1-B-34, S.f.s. Talwandi, Kota - 5.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s Shree Sidhi Vinayak Society, For Hospitality Education Research And Development, Pune (Maharastra) C/o D-268, 2Nd Floor, T.i.c. Industrial Estate, Midc Area, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai400703 (Maharastra) Through Authorized Person Shri Chaitanya Patil @ 8655224567.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Chain Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) :

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

¶11

Order

¶12

27/01/2023

¶13

The instant arbitration application has been filed by the applicant under Section 11 read with Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act of 1996”).

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the notices were issued by this Court in the present application on 27^th August, 2021.

¶15

Learned counsel submitted that the notices have duly been served on the respondent-non-applicant and accordingly, this Court, on 06^th January, 2023, considered the office report and found service to be complete on the non-applicant and directed to proceed ex-parte against the non-applicant.

(2 of 2)

[2023/RJJP/000639]

[ARBAP-45/2021]

Learned counsel submitted that the applicant, before approaching this Court, had given statutory notice for appointment of an Arbitrator, as there was a Clause No.19 in the Agreement of Leave and License, executed between the applicant and the non-applicant.

¶20

Accordingly, this Court finds that the agreement clause, relating to appointment of the Arbitrator, is required to be invoked and as such, the application, filed by the applicant, is allowed.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that looking to the nature of dispute, the matter may be referred to an Arbitrator, who is stationed at Kota itself.

¶22

Learned counsel for the applicant suggests the name of Mr.Kunj Bihari Katta, Retired District Judge.

¶23

This Court, while exercising the power conferred under Section 11 of the Act of 1996, appoints Mr.Kunj Bihari Katta (Retired District Judge), A-224, Riddhi Siddhi Nagar, Kunhari, Kota – 324008 as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the present dispute between the parties. The payment of cost of arbitration proceedings and arbitration fee shall be made as per the 4^th Schedule appended to the Act of 1996.

¶24

The intimation of appointment, as aforesaid, may be given by counsel for the parties as well as by the Registry to Mr.Kunj Bihari Katta (Retired District Judge), A-224, Riddhi Siddhi Nagar, Kunhari, Kota – 324008.

¶25

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J

¶26

Preeti Asopa/11

Santosh Kumar Sexena S/O Late Shri K.N. Saxena v. M/S Shree Sidhi Vinayak Society

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar Sexena S/O Late Shri K.N. Saxena v. M/S Shree Sidhi Vinayak Society

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Vineet Kumar Gupta S/O Shri Phool Chand Gupta Vs the State of Rajasthan

Dr. Sitaram Dotoliya S/O Sh. Ramswaroop Dotoliya Vs the State of Rajasthan

Smt. Aaradhana Sarwan W/O Sh. Daulatram Vaidh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Principal Medical and Health Officer Vs Bharat Singh S/O Shri Banwari Lal

State of Rajasthan Vs Amit Kumar S/O Shri J.R. Bhatiya

State of Rajasthan Vs Bhanwar Jalim Singh S/O Shri Sajjan Singh