ABHINANDAN KUMAR JAIN & Ors. v. Represented by: Mr.Raman Kapur, Sr.Advocate
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
appeal is dismissed in limine
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. For the reasons stated in the aforesaid order, the instant appeal is dismissed in limine.
Judgment
Represented by: Mr.Kulwant Swarup Sharma, Advocate. VCTSUS MANOJ KUMAR JAIN ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Raman Kapur, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.F.Hasan, Advocate. AND + FAO(OS) 23612012 ABHINANDAN KUMAR JAIN & ORS ..... Appellants Represented by: Mr.Kulwant Swarup Sharma, Advocate. VCTSUS SONU JAIN Represented by: Mr.Raman Kapur, Sr.Advocate ..... Respondent instructed by Mr.F.Hasan, Advocate. 1\ - CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE STDDHARTH MRTDUL o/o ORDER 25.05.2OL2 Caveat No. 553/2012 in FAO(OS) 23212012 Caveat No. 555/2012 in FAO(OS) 236/2012 Counsel as above appears for the respondent/caveator and FAO(OS) 23212012 & 23612012 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMULYA hence the caveats are discharged. CM No.972112012 (Exemption) in FAO(OS) 23212012 CM No.979712012 (Exemption) in FAO(OS) 236/2012 Allowed. FAO/OS\ 232t20L2 & 236120L2 1. Similar appeal was dismissed by us as per order dated 23.05.20L2. The order reads as under: "FAO@S\ 22612012 and FAO@S) 22912012 1. lt is not in dispute that the arbitration clause in question does not empower any party to appoint an Arbitrator. The arbitration clause simply states that the disputes, if any, would be referred to sole arbitration. ln that view of the matter it is apparent that the appellants could not have appointed any person to act as the Sole Arbitrator, and if consent was not forthcoming from the respondent, resort had to be made to Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. lt is sought to be urged that since the Arbitrator had served the respondent and the respondent had not objected to the Arbitrator acting as such, it would be a case of waiver, 3. Suffice would it be to say that the respondent never appeared before the Arbitrator. The unilaterally appointed person to act as the Arbitrator has passed an ex-parte award. 4. We find no infirmity with the view taken by the learned Single Judge as per impugned order dated April 24, 2OI2 and therefore, we dismissed the appeal in limine. 5. No costs. "
Operative part
For the reasons stated in the aforesaid order, the instant appeal is dismissed in limine.
No costs. FAO(OS) 232t2or2 & 236/20l2 ,.-t, CM No. 972012012 (Stay) in FAO(OS) 23212012 CM No.9796/2012 (Stav) in FAO(OS) 236/2012 Dismissed as infructuous. -*- ,-\\r.* -n *e/ (\ A{u PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J t MAY 25,20L2 '-rl*'1 SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J F I FAO(OS) 232t20L2 & 236t20r2
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: appeal is dismissed in limine
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 11(5).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.