2015 (9) TMI 812

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ences with the applicant with regard to the works under the sub-contracts, though executed in the name of the Taiyo Membrane Corporation and Taiyo Membrane Corporation (India), the applicant's petition cannot be held to be not maintainable as urged on behalf of the respondent. Having held as aforesaid and the remaining objections, as noticed, being within the province of the Arbitrator the Court is inclined to grant the prayers made. Accordingly, Dr. Justice M.K. Sharma, a former Judge of this Court is appointed as the sole Arbitrator. - Arbitration Case (Civil) No. 2 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 9-9-2015 - Ranjan Gogoi, J. JUDGMENT 1. This application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... agreements. On the said basis, it is urged that there is no valid invocation of the arbitration clause and consequently there is no failure on the part of the respondent to appoint the arbitrator so as to warrant an order from the Court under Section 11(6) of the Act. It is also urged that one of the sub-agreements being between two Indian entities i.e. Taiyo Membrane Corporation (India) and the respondent Company any appointment of an arbitrator would fall outside the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 11(6) of the Act. 4. The above objections of the respondent have been sought to be met by the petitioner by filing a rejoinder affidavit to point out that the Letters of Intent with regard to the works allotted under the sub-agreeme .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ary Company Limited by shares is incorporated as Pty. Ltd. 6. In the above circumstances the alleged mis-description will not affect the maintainability of the present application. As already observed, the Court does not find any ambiguity or inconsistency in the description of parties so as to non-suit the applicant-petitioner by dismissing its application on the above basis. The ambiguity, if any, in the description of the parties having been explained and the respondent Company itself having issued L.O.Is. and having exchanged subsequent correspondences with the applicant with regard to the works under the sub-contracts, though executed in the name of the Taiyo Membrane Corporation and Taiyo Membrane Corporation (India), the applicant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X