M/S YOKOHAMA INDIA PRIVATE LTD v. M/s Sherman

03. 10.20 1 1 These petitions have been preferred under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 to seek the appointment of the Presiding Arbitrator. The parties have entered into two leases dated 01,05.2007, whereunder the petitioner was inducted as a tenant in respect of the adjoining premises. The petitioner had, admittedly, vacated both the premises. The dispute between the parties relate to the right of the petitioner to seek refund of the security deposit and I 2011:DHC:1938[1] Jjr I also the right of the respondent to adjust the security deposit and claim further damages. Both the parties have nominated one Arbitrator each in terms of the arbitration agreement contained in Clause 42 of both the lease documents. The two learned Arbitrators have not been able to nominate the Presiding Arbitrator even though the two Arbitrators were appointed in October & November respectively. During the course of hearing, counsel for both the parties have taken instructions and they are agreeable to appointment of a Sole Arbitrator by this Court to adjudicate their respective claims & counterclaims. Accordingly, the arbitration agreement stands novated to the aforesaid extent. l, therefore, appoint Ms. Justice Manju Goel, retired Judge of this Court, as the Sole Arbitrator. The parties are agreeable to the conduct of the arbitration under the Rules of the Delhi High Court Arbitration Centre. They have jointly signed a memorandum to this effect. A copy of this order be communicated to the learned Arbitrator and also to the Delhi High Court Arbitration Centre. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

OCTOBER 03, ?OTL '8SR' a NGHI, J