9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 691X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d manufacturing. It has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for appointment of an arbitrator to go into the disputes and differences that have arisen with the respondent Company which is a private limited company incorporated in India under the Companies Act, 1956. 2. The averments made in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of arbitration dated 20th June, 2013 to the respondent in terms of the Master Agreement dated 15th July, 2011 entered into by and between the parties. The said reference to the Arbitration was in terms of Article 16 of the aforesaid Master Agreement. 5. Pursuant thereto, arbitration commenced under the Singapore International Arbitration Act. The proceedings in Arbitration were objected to by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d circumstances, the present petition has been filed seeking appointment of an Arbitrator. 7. We have heard Shri Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. In spite of due service of notice, the respondent is not represented. Though the petition could have been heard ex parte on the date fixed i.e. 27th April, 2015, a further opportunity was granted to the respondent and the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iation Act, 1996". 9. In the above view of the matter, there can be no manner of doubt that the petitioner is entitled to have its claim to receive the aforesaid amount of the bills adjudicated by an Arbitrator appointed by the Court under Section 11(6) of the Act. Consequently, we allow the present petition and appoint Shri Justice B. Sudershan Reddy, a former judge of this Court as the Arbitrat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
