- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 3 November 2016
- Bench
- S. Muralidhar
- Case no.
- ARB.P. 175/2016
Follow Delhi High CourtFollow S. Muralidhar
Judgment
O R D E R %
03.11.2016
¶1Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that since for the purposes of Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 ('Act') the existence of an arbitration agreement is not disputed, the disputes can be referred to a sole Arbitrator. Any objection that the Respondent may have to the legal tenability of the claim can be raised before the learned Arbitrator in accordance with law.
¶2The Court, accordingly, appoints Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi, Senior Advocate (Mobile No. 9810021791) as sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties including their claims and counter-claims. The arbitration shall take place under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre ('DAC'). ARB.P. 175/2016
¶3The fees of the learned Arbitrator will be in terms of the Delhi High Court Arbitration Centre (Arbitrators' Fees) Rules.
¶4The petition and the applications are disposed of. A copy of this order be communicated to Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi as well as the Additional Coordinator, DAC forthwith.
S. MURALIDHAR, J
NOVEMBER 03, 2016 RS
ARB.P. 175/2016
Case details
Parties and counsel
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.P. 175/2016 GAURAV KHANNA & ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Anupam Srivastava, Advocate. versus BHASIN INFOTECH AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Raveesh Thukral, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.