Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
#6
#6
ARB.P. 210/2008
AVTAR VINAYAK Petitioner
Through None
AVTAR VINAYAK Petitioner
Through None
VERSUS
SHIB DEVI RAWAT & ANOTHER
Through None Respondents 1 \
Through None Respondents 1 \
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ""A
07.08.2009 lA No.9868/2009 For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing reply is condoned and the reply is taken on record.
The application stands disposed of.
Arb P. 210/2008 Heard both the parties.
This is an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act,: 1996 (for short 'the Act')for appointment of the third arbitrator so as to constitute the arbitral tribunal to settle the disputes and difference between the parties in the collaboration agreement dated lO'^'July, 1995.
The facts are that the petitioner and the second respondent filed
2009:DHC:6072 a civil suit being No.218/2005 for declaration and consequential relief of injunction in the court of the learned Civil Judge, Delhi. In that suit, respondent No.l filed an application under Section 8 of the Act and the matter was referred for arbitration of Shri Yogesh Verma, named by the petitioner and respondent No.2 and Ms.Pooja Charnalia, nominated by respondent No.l. It is seen from the record that the two arbitrators not only failed to appoint a third arbitrator in accordance with the
^arbitration agreement to complete constitution of the arbitration tribunal but also failed to sort out their differences as to what should be the place of arbitration. After going through the reply I do not see any ground not to accept the prayer made in the petition.
Accordingly, the application is allowed. Justice Sat Pal (Retd) is appointed as the third arbitrator.
CHIEF JUSTICE
W AUGUST 07,2009 r 1 " V 2009:DHC:6072
07.08.2009 lA No.9868/2009 For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing reply is condoned and the reply is taken on record.
The application stands disposed of.
Arb P. 210/2008 Heard both the parties.
This is an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act,: 1996 (for short 'the Act')for appointment of the third arbitrator so as to constitute the arbitral tribunal to settle the disputes and difference between the parties in the collaboration agreement dated lO'^'July, 1995.
The facts are that the petitioner and the second respondent filed
2009:DHC:6072 a civil suit being No.218/2005 for declaration and consequential relief of injunction in the court of the learned Civil Judge, Delhi. In that suit, respondent No.l filed an application under Section 8 of the Act and the matter was referred for arbitration of Shri Yogesh Verma, named by the petitioner and respondent No.2 and Ms.Pooja Charnalia, nominated by respondent No.l. It is seen from the record that the two arbitrators not only failed to appoint a third arbitrator in accordance with the
^arbitration agreement to complete constitution of the arbitration tribunal but also failed to sort out their differences as to what should be the place of arbitration. After going through the reply I do not see any ground not to accept the prayer made in the petition.
Accordingly, the application is allowed. Justice Sat Pal (Retd) is appointed as the third arbitrator.
CHIEF JUSTICE
W AUGUST 07,2009 r 1 " V 2009:DHC:6072
JUDGMENT