ARBAP/11/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 2675 UK

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                AT NAINITAL
          HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI


                         26TH AUGUST, 2022


     ARBITRATION APPLICATION No. 11 OF 2022

Between:
Sri Purnanad Pandey.
                                                                    ...Applicant
and

Mr. Harish Chandra Pathak and others.
                                                            ...Respondents
Counsel for the applicant.           :   Mr. Ganesh      Kandpal,    the   learned
                                         counsel.

Counsel for the respondent.          :   None appears.


JUDGMENT :

As per the Tracking Report of the Postal

Department, the respondents stand served on

20.07.2022. However, none appears for the

respondents. I am, therefore, inclined to proceed to

dispose of the present Arbitration Application preferred

by the applicant, under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration

and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act), to seek

appointment of a sole arbitrator for adjudicating the

disputes, which have arisen between the parties.

2. The claim of the applicant is that the applicant

entered into a Partnership Deed with the respondents, namely Mr. Harish Chandra Pathak, Mr. Vijay Bahuguna

and Mrs. Anjali Bahuguna vide Partnership Deed dated

23.06.2016. The Partnership Deed took over the

operations of the existing proprietorship firm - M/s OB

Annexe, which was carrying on the business of

Restaurant under the name and style of "M/s OB

Annexe". The applicant states that disputes arose

between the parties, and since there is an arbitration

clause contained in Clause 8 of the Partnership Deed,

the applicant invoked the arbitration agreement vide

notice dated 22.02.2022. The arbitration agreement

between the parties, contained in Clause 8 of the

Partnership Deed, reads as follows :-

"8. THAT DISPUTES between the partners interest, if any shall be decided by reference to a mutually acceptable Arbitrator within the meaning of Arbitration Act, 1940 or any enactment in force for the time being, and the decision of such Arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties to the dispute"

3. Despite invocation of the arbitration

agreement, the respondents have not agreed to

appointment of an Arbitrator and, consequently, this

Arbitration Application has been preferred.

4. As aforesaid, none has appeared for the

respondents.

5. At this stage Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, the

learned counsel, appears on behalf of the respondent no.

2, and states that the said respondent has also invoked

the arbitration agreement by filing Arbitration

Application No. 10 of 2020, which is still pending.

6. Aforesaid being the position, there is no

impediment in allowing the present Arbitration

Application.

7. In the light of the aforesaid, I allow this

application. Accordingly, I appoint Mr. R.D. Paliwal,

Retd. District & Sessions Judge, having Mobile No.

9412056353, as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate all the

claims of the parties to the Partnership Deed.

8. The present Arbitration Application stands

disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

________________ VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.

Dt: 26th August, 2022 Rahul