P.B Analytics Pvt. Ltd. v. Nitesh Estates Limited

Delhi High Court · 18 Feb 2016 · 2016:DHC:8294
Manmohan Singh
ARB .P. 470/2015
2016:DHC:8294
civil petition_allowed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court appointed an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 after mediation failed, directing arbitration under DIAC rules.

Full Text
Translation output
f HIGH COURT OF DELHI
ARB .P. 470/2015
P.B ANALYTICS PVT. LTD. Petitioner
Through' Ms.Pooja M. Saigal, Adv. with Ms.Nivedita H.S. Bhaskar, Adv.
VERSUS
NITESH ESTATES LIMITED Respondent
Through Mr.Akshay Ringe, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
18.02.2016 The mediation report has been received which indicates that the settlement is not possible.
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 11(6) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment ofan Arbitrator.
The total claim ofthe petitioner is Rs.5,05,612/-. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection if an Advocate is appointed as Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. With the consent of the parties, the prayer made in the petition is allowed. Mr.Samrat Nigam, Advocate
(Mobile No.9810424476) is appointed as sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties as mentioned in the present petition. The parties are also allowed to file their respective claims and counter-claims before the Arbitrator.
2016:DHC:8294 t r The arbitration shall take place under the aegis of Delhi International
Arbitration Centre ('DAG'). The Arbitrator shall ensure the compliance of the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 before commencing the arbitration. The fees of the Arbitrator shall be in terms of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (Administrative Cost
Arbitrator's Fees) Rules.
The petitionis accordingly disposed of.
Copy ofthis order be given dasti tothe learned counsel for the parties and a copy thereof be delivered to the Arbitrator as well as Additional
Coordinator, DAC forthwith.
FEBRUARY 18,2016/ka 2016:DHC:8294
JUDGMENT