Latest News
Ujwala Raje Shah vs. Veer Corporation
Ujwala Raje Shah vs. Veer Corporation:
Appointment of Arbitrator: Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. Applicant filed an application under Section 11 of Act seeking appointment of arbitrator on behalf of Respondent - Whether on facts of case arbitration agreement exists between parties - Held, intention of parties to enter into arbitration agreement had to be gathered from terms of agreement - If arbitration clause was referred in letters, telex, telegrams or other means of communication exchanged between parties providing record of such agreement and not controverter, it would be in sufficient compliance of Section 7 of Act - Clause 15 of arbitration clause entered between parties indicated that both parties had intended and agreed to appoint one arbitrator from each side and had agreed to abide by decision taken by arbitrators and such arbitration would be given effect to as per provisions of Arbitration Act - Intention of both parties in present case were expressly and/or impliedly reflected in arbitration clause - Applicant was entitled to file present proceedings under Section 11(6) of Act for appointment of nominee arbitrator on behalf of Respondents as arbitration agreement existed between parties
Arbitration - Jurisdiction - Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 ; Section 3 of Limitation Act 1993 - Whether present Application was maintainable before Chief Justice of Bombay High Court - Held, if parties were required to file civil suit in absence of arbitration clause, a Court which would have jurisdiction to entertain such suit, such Court would have jurisdiction to entertain arbitration petition or application for same subject matter - Disputes in relation to which arbitration clause was invoked by Applicant, negotiations between parties having taken place at Bombay, agreements were entered into at Bombay, Applicant could have filed a suit before Bombay High Court for reliefs proposing to claim in arbitration proceedings - Thus, Chief Justice of present Court or his designate had jurisdiction to entertain Application under Section 11 of Act filed by Applicant - Merely because there was reference to pending suit and application filed by applicant in Court at Baroda would not mean that present Application seeks transfer of said disputes to arbitration by present application - As regards issue of limitation raised by Respondent, no such plea could be allowed to be raised for first time across bar - Therefore Section 3 of 1993 Act would not apply to application under Section 11 of Act as same was not before Court - Accordingly, presiding arbitrator was appointed by arbitrator appointed by Applicant and arbitrator appointed by present order in accordance with provisions of Act - Arbitration Application disposed off
It was held that the learned counsel for the respondents seeks stay of this order for the period of four weeks from today, which is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant. Operation of this order is stayed for the period of four weeks from today.
- Case Notes
- Proceedings
- Held
