9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appointment of arbitrator under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Analysis: The petition was filed seeking the appointment of an arbitrator under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to resolve disputes mentioned in the partnership deed. The partnership deed of the firm in question outlined that all disputes beyond mutual decisions shall be referred to arbitration as per the Arbitration Act, 1940. The notice sent to the respondents emphasized the failure to settle accounts and the intention to approach the court for the appointment of an arbitrator as per the arbitration clause. However, the main argument presented by the respondents was that the notice did not comply with the requirements of sub-section (5) of section 11 of the Act, making the petition legally unsustainable. The respondents contended that since the partnership deed did not specify the number of arbitrators to be appointed, a sole arbitrator should be chosen. However, the notice did not suggest any names for the arbitrator nor did it call upon the respondents to agree to the appointment of a sole arbitrator within the stipulated time frame of 30 days. Consequently, the petition was deemed legally unsustainable based on the non-compliance with the provisions of section 11(5) of the Act. As a result, the court dismissed the petition, granting the petitioners the option to file a fresh petition after serving a new notice under sub-section (5) of section 11 on the concerned respondents. No costs were awarded in this judgment.
|
