Allowed

M/s Durocrete Construction Quality Rating Agency v. Maytas Properties Limited

Telangana HC1 Mar 2011ARBAPPL/109/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, the court appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from a contract between the applicant and respondent. The agreement specified Hyderabad as the venue; the court appointed an advocate practicing in Hyderabad.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Smt. N.Sasi Kala, Advocate, Hyderabad, as Arbitrator; Application disposed of; No costs.

M/s Durocrete Construction Quality Rating Agency Vs Maytas… — Arbitration | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶2

Arbitration Application No. 109 of 2010

¶3

Date: 01.03.2011

¶4

Between:

¶5

M/s. Durocrete construction Quality Rating Agency Pvt., Ltd.,

¶6

…Applicant

¶7

And Maytas Properties Limited, Hyderabad.

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶10

Arbitration Application No. 109 of 2010

¶11

O R D E R :

¶12

This application is filed under Section 11(5) & (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) for appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the claims and disputes between the parties arising out of the agreement dated 03.02.2007.

¶13

The applicant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its Registered Office at Pune. The respondent is also a company incorporated under the Companies Act having its Registered Office at Hyderabad. It is not in dispute that the applicant entered into an agreement dated 03.02.2007 with the respondent to provide Quality Audit Service. It is also not in dispute that the said agreement contained an arbitration clause as under:

¶14

8.2 Dispute Resolution:-

¶15

“Any disputes arising out of the CQRA Contract between the Client and CQRA shall be referred to the arbitration by one arbitrator mutually agreed by both parties, and shall be of Hyderabad jurisdiction only. The venue of arbitration shall be Hyderabad. The decision of the Arbitral Tribunal shall be final and binding on the Client and CQRA.”

¶16

Claiming that though the entire work was completed as per the schedule, the respondent company failed to make the payment, the applicant got issued a notice dated 02.04.2010 proposing the name of Mr.Anant Gajanan Abhyankar, an Advocate in Pune, to act as Arbitrator. The respondent by reply dated 26.06.2010 suggested that the claims and disputes be referred for arbitration by one S.Srinivas Reddy, Advocate at Hyderabad.

¶17

Having regard to the disagreement between the parties, the present application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Act, for appointment of an Arbitrator. Heard both sides.

¶18

As noticed above, there is an agreement between the parties which contained an arbitration clause. Admittedly, disputes arising out of the said agreement dated 03.02.2007 are existing between the parties. As

¶19

a matter of fact, both the parties agreed for resolution of disputes by arbitration, but the disagreement is only with regard to the arbitrator to be appointed. Having regard to the fact that the arbitration clause specifically provides that the venue of arbitration shall be Hyderabad, I deem it appropriate to appoint Smt. N.Sasi Kala, an advocate practicing at Hyderabad as Arbitrator.

¶20

Accordingly, Smt. N.Sasi Kala, Advocate, Plot No.775/C, Road No.45, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-33 is hereby appointed as Arbitrator to adjudicate the claims and disputes between the applicant and the respondent arising out of the agreement dated 03.02.2007. It is open to the learned Arbitrator to fix her fees and the same shall be borne by both parties equally.

¶21

Accordingly, the Arbitration Application is disposed of. No costs.

¶22

_______________ G. ROHINI, J

¶23

Date: 01.03.2011 KLP

M/s Durocrete Construction Quality Rating Agency v. Maytas Properties Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Durocrete Construction Quality Rating Agency v. Maytas Properties Limited

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

M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Vs M/S. Excel Stationeries Limited

P.V. Reddy Vs M/s Narne Homes Private Limited

The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. Vs Prithvi Information Solutions Limited

Md.Zamiruddin, Vs The Labour Court

Md.Najiullah, M.Sc., Zoology, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V.Ravinder , Vs Divisional Secrity Commissioner