Allowed

M/S.Nri Infra Projects and Developers (India) Pvt. Ltd., Hyd v. M/S Amr India Ltd., Hyd and Another

Telangana HC21 Oct 2019ARBAPPL/65/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court considered an application for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Despite the arbitration clause providing for two arbitrators and an umpire, the court allowed the application appointing a sole arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from the dated 22-04-2015 agreement.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Hon'ble Justice Sri B.Seshasayana Reddy as the sole Arbitrator to resolve disputes arising out of the agreement dated 22-04-2015.

M/S.Nri Infra Projects and Developers (India) Pvt. Ltd., Hyd… — Arbitration | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.65 of 2017

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

By way of this application filed under Section 11 (5 & 6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act”) the applicant seeks appointment of an Arbitrator for resolution disputes arising under the agreement dated 22-04-2015 entered into by and between them.

¶4

The case of the applicant is that for execution of subcontract work, an agreement was entered between the petitioner and the 1^st respondent dated 22-04-2015. Since some disputes arose out of sub-contract work, the applicant issued notices dated 08-12-2016, 22-02-2017 by invoking clause No.23 of the subcontract agreement for appointment of arbitrator. The said clause provides for appointment of arbitrator by each of the parties and the two arbitrators thereafter shall appoint an umpire to constitute the Arbitral Tribunal. The 1^st respondent replied by notice dated 06-04-2017 stating that the matter is settled, as such invocation of clause No.23 does not arise. As such the present application is filed for appointment of an arbitrator.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no basis for the 1^st respondent to contend that the dispute is settled and unilateral decision of 1^st respondent that dispute settled cannot be taken into account for deciding the application for appointment of arbitrator.

¶6

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent submits that they have no objection for appointment of an independent arbitrator.

¶7

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant also says that the applicant has no objection for appointment of an independent arbitrator, though clause No.23 provides for two arbitrators and umpire.

¶9

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the arbitration application is allowed appointing Hon’ble Justice Sri B.Seshasayana Reddy as the sole Arbitrator for resolution of dispute(s) between the applicant and respondent, arising out of agreement dated 22-04-2015 in accordance with the provisions and mandate of the Act of 1996. The learned Arbitrator shall be entitled to fees as per the rates specified in the Fourth Schedule to the Act of 1996, inserted by Act 3 of 2016 with effect from 23-10-2015, which shall be borne by both parties in equal

¶10

measure. No order as to costs.

¶11

_________________________
A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J
21-10-2019
Nvl

¶12

¶13

M/S.Nri Infra Projects and Developers (India) Pvt. Ltd., Hyd v. M/S Amr India Ltd., Hyd and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Nri Infra Projects and Developers (India) Pvt. Ltd., Hyd v. M/S Amr India Ltd., Hyd and Another

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

Routu Bhiksham, Vs Sri. Baba Sharifuddin

Borra Sathi Reddy Vs Sri Chandrasekhar Goud

Shaik Sarwar, Vs Sri Sridhar

M/s Sushma Electrical Works, Vs The Northern Power Distribution Company

Sri Lakshmi Gana Sai Furniture Showroom Vs The Northern Power Distribution Comapny Telengana Limited (Tsnpdcl)

Mettupalli Srinivasa Rao Vs State of Telangana