MEGALOGIX v. ST.MARTINS DIOCESAN SCHOOL

1. By way of this petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ['Hhe Act"],the petitioner seeks appointment ofan arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising between the parties under the "Contract for Conduct of Exam for Computer Education" ["the Agreement"]dated 01.01.2019.

2. Notice was issued in this petition 30.05.2022, and the respondent was directed to file a reply to the petition within three weeks after service, ifit wished to oppose the appointment ofan arbitrator.

3. ' The office report states that the respondent has been served by email. The petitioner has also filed an affidavit of service dated.06.07.2022, which reveals that notice was delivered to the respondent by speed post on 28.06.2022. ARB.P. 666/2022 Page 1 ofI 2022:DHC:6017

4. Despite this position, the respondent has not yet entered appearance.

5. In view of the fact that the respondent has been duly served, and the time granted to it for filing ofthe reply has also elapsed,the petition is taken up for hearing.

6. The Agreement dated 01.01.2019 contemplated services being rendered by the petitioner to the respondent on the terms and conditions stipulated therein. Clause 10 of the Agreement contains an arbitration clause. %

7. As far as jurisdiction ofthis Court is concerned, both parties carry on business within thejurisdiction ofthis Court,and the services were also to be rendered by the petitioner to the respondent at the respondent's premises within thejurisdiction.

8. Disputes arose between the parties,regarding the payment of the renumeration claimed by the petitioner under the Agreement. The petitioner, through counsel, addressed a notice dated 17.08.2021, calling upon the respondent to make payment of the sum of ?38,72,700/-. By a further communication dated 22.11.2021, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause and nominated the arbitrator. The respondent did not^ reply to the said notice.

9. Although the arbitration clause in the agreement contemplates an arbitral tribunal oftwo members,one to be nominated by each party,such a clause is contrary to Section 10(1)ofthe Act. Consequently,the disputes are required to be adjudicated by a sole arbitrator in terms ofSection 10(2) ofthe Act.

10. From the aforesaid discussion, it appears that there is no ARB.P.666/2022 Page2of[2] §1 r impediment to the appointment ofan arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The respondent has also not sought to raise any disputes in this regard.

11. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is disposed of with the following direetions:a. Mr. Manu Aggarwal,Advocate [Tel: 9810007854]is appointed as the arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties under the Agreement dated 01.01.2019. % b. The learned arbitrator is requested to make a declaration under f Section 12 ofthe Act prior to entering upon the reference, e. The learned arbitrator may fix his own remuneration.