Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashim Talwar vs Sarbjit Singh Minhas on 11 March, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
2024: PHHC:034408
ARB-172-2021 (O & M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
258 ARB-172-2021 (O & M)
Date of decision:11.03.2024
ASHIM TALWAR .- PETITIONER
VS.
SARBJIT SINGH MINHAS .. RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present: Ms. Shruti Mandhotra, Advocate for
Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vaibhav Parashar, Advocate
for the respondent.
3K 2k 3
SUVIR SEHGAL J. (ORAL)
1. Instant petition has been filed under Section 11 (6) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act'), seeking
appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the
parties.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and
respondent entered into a partnership deed dated 02.12.2019,
Annexure P-1, which provides that, in case of a dispute between the
parties, it shall be referred to an Arbitrator. She has made a reference to
Clause 14 of the partnership deed, Annexure P-1. She submits that a
Sheetal
2024.03.13 16:32
es @ accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Chandigarh
2024: PHHC:034408
ARB-172-2021 (O & M) -2-
dispute arose between the parties and the petitioner served a legal notice
dated 06.12.2020, Annexure P-3, invoking the Arbitration Clause and in
reply dated 14.12.2020, Annexure P-4, besides denying the allegations,
respondent submitted that the Arbitrator proposed by the petitioner, is
not acceptable.
3. Upon notice, written statement has been filed by the
respondent, contesting the petition.
4. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their
respective submissions.
5. Neither the partnership deed nor the arbitration clause has been
disputed. Even notice invoking the arbitration clause stands admitted.
The sole objection raised by the respondent is that the proceedings are to
be conducted at Gurugram and the Arbitrator suggested by the petitioner
is based in Faridabad, which is not in terms of the Arbitration Clause. It
has also been submitted that the petitioner has filed a petition under
Section 09 of the Act at Faridabad.
6. In view of the above, this Court is satisfied that an Arbitrator
deserves to be appointed.
7. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Sh. Shri Krishan Kaushik,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) H. No. 1118, Sector 46, Gurugram,
Mobile No.9599499060, is appointed as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate
the dispute between the parties, subject to declaration to be made by him
under Section 12 of the Act with regard to his independence and
impartiality to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
Sheetal
2024.03.13 16:32
I attest to the accuracy an
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Chandigarh
Sheeta
2024.03.13 16:32
I attest to the accuracy an
authen is order/judgment
High Court, Chandigarh
the
ticity of th
2024: PHHC:034408
ARB-172-2021 (O & M) -3-
8. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Arbitrator on
03.04.2024 or on any day, time and place to be fixed and communicated
by the learned Arbitrator at his convenience.
9. The arbitrator shall be paid fee in accordance with the Fourth
Schedule of the Act, as amended.
10. The arbitrator is requested to complete the proceedings as per
time limit specified under Section 29-A of the Act.
11. Copy of the order be sent to the learned arbitrator.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
11.03.2024 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
sheetal JUDGE
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
