ARBAP/57/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 3877 UK

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

                                  AT NAINITAL
                 THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI


            ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 57 OF 2022

                           02ND DECEMBER, 2022

BETWEEN:
Vikas Uniyal                                                      .....Applicant.
And

M/s Serene Tourism Venture, through its Manager

                                                                   ....Respondent.

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. I.P. Kohli, learned counsel.

Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Rakshit Joshi, learned counsel.

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)

This application has been preferred by the applicant

under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

1996, to seek appointment of the sole Arbitrator, to resolve

the disputes between the parties, in terms of the Arbitration

Agreement in Clause13 contained in the Agreement to Sell

dated 27.06.2019, entered into between the parties.

2. Under the said agreement, the applicant has

agreed to purchase certain parcels of land from the

respondent for consideration price of Rs.23.00 crores. The

applicant had made certain payments to the respondent.

According to the applicant, the respondent is neither

executing the sale-deed, nor has refunded the amount paid

by the applicant towards advance payment. The agreement

contains the arbitration agreement in Clause 13, which

provides that the disputes between the parties would be

referred to the Arbitration of a mutually appointed Arbitrator.

3. The Arbitration is governed by the provisions of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The applicant invoked the

Arbitration Agreement vide notice dated 13.07.2022. The

respondent sent the reply on 13.08.2022. The respondent

stated that the agreement was entered into on 27.06.2019,

and not on 27.07.2019. The respondent disputed the claims

of the applicant in the said reply. Consequently, the parties

could not mutually agree upon appointment of the sole

Arbitrator.

4. In the light of the aforesaid, the applicant has

preferred the present application.

5. Upon issuance of the notice, the respondent has

filed the counter-affidavit. The stand taken by the respondent

is that no agreement was entered into on 27.07.2019. The

same was entered into on 27.06.2019. The respondent also

stated that the said agreement does not survive, and the

registration of the said agreement was wrongfully obtained.

6. I have heard learned counsels for the parties.

7. It is evident that there is typographical error with

regard to the date of agreement in the application. The same

is, indeed, on 27.06.2019, as is evident from the copy of the

agreement placed on record. The mere wrong typing of the

date of the agreement would not disentitle the applicant to

seek the appointment of the sole Arbitrator in terms of the

agreement, since it is not disputed that the parties entered

into an agreement on 27.06.2019, which contains an

Arbitration Agreement in Clause 13.

8. The submission of learned counsel for the

respondent that the agreement was wrongly registered on

13.07.2019 is neither here, nor there. It is evident from the

record that the parties entered into an agreement, in relation

to which the parties agreed to refer the disputes to

Arbitration. It is evident that disputes have arisen between

the parties under the Agreement to Sell, and there are

allegations and counter-allegations between the parties.

9. Accordingly, I allow the application and appoint Mr.

Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw (Retd.), Mobile No.9717495002,

as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the claims and counter-

claims of the parties, arising out of the aforesaid agreement

to sell dated 27.06.2019.

10. Application stands disposed of.

(VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.)

Dated: 02ndDecember, 2022 NISHANT