ARBAP/51/2018
2023 Latest Caselaw 499 UK

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


            ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 51 OF 2018

                           24TH FEBRUARY, 2023

BETWEEN:
M/s Singhal Engineering                                        .....Applicant.
And

Sigma-C Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.                               ....Respondent.

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel.

Counsel for the Respondent : None.

The Court made the following:

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

The Registry has reported that the service affected

upon the respondent through e-mail has not bounced back.

Therefore, the respondent stands served.

2. Despite service, none appears for the respondent.

Accordingly, I proceed to dispose of the present arbitration

application.

3. 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 decide the

disputes between the parties, arising out of their agreement

dated 12.08.2015. The parties entered into an agreement for

development of mixed-use residential complexes in

Hulhumale, Maldives on 12.08.2015. The agreement was

entered into between the parties at Dehradun. Both the

parties to the agreement are Indians. Under the agreement,

the parties agreed to jointly develop real estate. The

agreement contains a dispute resolution clause in Clause (Q),

which provides that in the event of any dispute arising out of

or in relation to the terms of the Agreement or the Project(s),

the parties shall attempt to settle such dispute by amicable

negotiations between the parties' designated representatives,

and if the disputes are not settled on amicable negotiations,

the matter, at the election of either party may be submitted

for resolution by arbitration.

4. The case of the applicant is that disputes arose

between the parties, and consequently, the applicant invoked

the arbitration agreement vide notice dated 30.07.2018. The

respondent sent a reply to the applicant's notice of invocation

on 16.08.2018. From the same, it appears that the stand of

the respondent was that Mr. Deepak Kumar Sarkar, the

Director of the respondent, was not authorized to enter into

an agreement with the applicant. The respondent also

disputed nomination made by the applicant for appointment

of the Arbitrator.

5. The applicant sent a rejoinder on 04.09.2018

disputing the stand of the respondent, and stating that in the

light of the aforesaid, the applicant has no option, but to

move to this Court for appointment of an Arbitrator.

6. From the aforesaid, it is evident that parties

entered indeed entered into the Memorandum of Agreement

dated 12.08.2015 at Dehradun. The stand taken by the

respondent with regard to the authority of Mr. Sarkar to enter

into an agreement is an issue which can only be addressed

before the Arbitral Tribunal. The applicant has also invoked

the arbitration agreement. However, the parties have not

been able to constitute the Arbitral Tribunal.

7. In these circumstances, the application is allowed. I

appoint Mr. Justice G.P. Mittal, Retd. High Court Judge, Mobile

No. 9910384619, to act as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate

the disputes between the parties, under the aforesaid

Agreement/ Contract. The learned sole Arbitrator shall hold

the proceedings virtually, and if physical hearings are

considered necessary, he may hold them physically.

8. The present application stands disposed of in the

aforesaid terms.

9. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

(VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.)

Dated: 24th February, 2023 NISHANT