M/S Rachana Constructions Through Poa Mr. Omkar Raju Jadhav v. Thanish Construction Llp Through Partner Mr. Nilesh Laddad

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 165 OF 2022 Rachana Constructions ...

Petitioner vs.

Thanish Construction LLP and another ...

Respondents Mr. Suhas B. Rohile for petitioner.

CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J DATE : 20th DECEMBER, 2022 P.C. :

.

By this petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner has prayed for appointment of arbitrator for resolving the disputes with the respondents. 2.

This petition is filed by the petitioner in the context of two agreements in the form of construction contracts executed between the petitioner and the two respondents. Both the agreements contain clause No.17 pertaining to arbitration. It is stipulated that in case any dispute arises between the parties to the agreement, the same shall be referred to the sole arbitrator. It is also specified that all the disputes arising out of the agreement shall be deemed to arise in Pune and only the Courts in Pune shall have exclusive jurisdiction.

3.

Upon disputes having arisen between the parties, the petitioner sent notice to both the respondents on 12th July, 2022, invoking the arbitration clause and even specifying the name of the sole arbitrator. Thereafter, further notices were exchanged between the parties, the last being the notice 1/3

dated 28th July, 2022, issued on behalf of the petitioner to the respondents. But, the appointment of the arbitrator could not come through, due to disagreements between the parties. In this backdrop, the present petition came to be filed.

4.

On 21st September, 2022, this Court issued notice in the present petition. Office note shows that the notice was duly served on the respondents. Despite service , there is no representation on behalf of the respondents.

5.

This Court has perused the material placed on record. The agreements in question indeed contain the arbitration clause identical in nature. The petitioner did invoke the said arbitration clause, in the light of disputes arising between the parties. Invocation of the arbitration clause did not lead to appointment of an arbitrator, as per the agreed procedure. Therefore, this Court is satisfied that the present petition deserves to be considered. 6.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has indicated the extent of claims raised on behalf of the petitioner against the respondents. As noted above, the arbitration clause specifies Pune as the place of arbitration. 7.

In view of the above, Mr. M. K. Haridas Nair, Advocate, available at Pune is appointed as the sole arbitrator. Details of the learned arbitrator are as follows:- Mr. M. K. Haridas Nair, 213, 2nd floor, A Wing, Jai Ganesh Vision, Off. Mumbai-Pune Road, Akurdi, Pune-411 035.

Tel. (Office) : 020-2724 9062 Residence: 020-2765 2727 Mob.:9766 708369 2/3

8.

The petitioner shall inform the learned arbitrator immediately about the order passed today.

9.

The learned arbitrator is requested to submit his consent and disclosure statement in terms of Sections 11(8) and 12(1) of the aforesaid Act within four weeks from today to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. The fees of the learned arbitrator shall be in terms of Fourth Schedule of the said Act.

10.

All questions are left open to be decided by the learned arbitrator. 11.

Petition stands disposed of in above terms.

(MANISH PITALE, J) Priya Kambli 3/3