Pvr Limited v. M/S Amb Infraventures Pvt Ltd And Another
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
ATCHANDIGARH ***** Arb.-265-2020 Date of Decision:12.03.2021 ***** PVR Limited . . . . . Petitioner Vs.
M/s AMB Infraventures Pvt. Ltd. And another . . . . . Respondents ***** CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARUN MONGA ***** Present: - Mr. Alok Mittal, for the petitioner.
Mr.Aashish Chopra, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
(Presence has been marked through video conferencing) ***** ARUN MONGA, J.
1.
Grievance of the petitioner herein is qua non-appointment of Arbitrator in terms of the Arbitration Agreement/Memorandum of Understanding dated 26.7.2016. Per MOU, parties agreed to refer their disputes through alternate dispute resolution by way of arbitration under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2.
The execution of the agreement is not disputed. The arbitration agreement has been duly signed by the authorized signatories of petitionercompany and respondent No.1-company. 3.
Being so, Sh. M.P. Mehndiratta, a former District and Sessions Judge, is appointed as sole Arbitrator. It is also left open to the learned Arbitrator to determine his fees in accordance with the applicable prescribed fee schedule. Both the parties shall share the costs of arbitration proceedings equally, including the fee of learned Arbitrator. Registry is directed to VIVEK PAHWA 2021.03.18 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
dispatch a soft copy of this order through email to Sh. M.P. Mehndiratta, a former District and Sessions Judge as well as a hard copy thereof. The learned Arbitrator may decide the venue of the Arbitral Tribunal as per his convenience by consent of all the parties or as per the agreement entered between the parties and issue notice to the parties to appear before him accordingly. Given the current pandemic scenario, learned Arbitrator is also at liberty to conduct the virtual proceedings through video conferencing. Needless to say, since the dispute is between the petitioner and respondent No.1, respondent No.2 need not to be made as a party in person merely because he is party in the instant petition. Disposed of accordingly.
(ARUN MONGA) 12.03.2021 JUDGE Vivek Whether speaking /reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No VIVEK PAHWA 2021.03.18 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document