B. Venkat Reddy v. M.Narasi Reddy & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Mr. R. G. Ketkar for the Petitioner. Mr.V.Y.Jadhav for the Respondents. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. DATED : 20TH JULY, 2007. DATED : 20TH JULY, 2007. DATED : 20TH JULY, 2007. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: This is a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying for appointment of the sole arbitrator. In view of the stand taken by the respondents before the Court, it is not necessary to notice the facts averred in the petition.
Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents states that the respondents have no objection to the appointment of the sole arbitrator, even out of the names indicated by the petitioner in paragraph 7 of the petition. However, it is stated that the respondents may also be permitted to file their claim before the arbitrator.
Learned Counsel for the respective parties -: 2 :- commonly agree that Mr.Dhairyasheel Patil, Advocate, Satara, be appointed as the sole arbitrator.
Consequently, Mr. Dhairyasheel Patil, Advocate, is appointed as the sole arbitrator, who shall enter upon the reference in accordance with the law.
Liberty to the parties to file claim / counter claim before the arbitrator.
Petition disposed of in above terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Sd/- CHIEF CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 11(6).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 20 Jul 2007.
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.