Gandhi Enterprises v. Anant Ramkrishna Bhambure
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 10 Aug 2007
Outcome
Disposed of
Application is disposed of accordingly
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Application is disposed of accordingly. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. CHIEF JUSTICE
Judgment
Mr. V.K.Srivastav, instructed by M/s. Khilnani & Co., for the applicant. Mr. D.N. Hungund for the respondent. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. DATE: AUGUST 10, 2007. P.C. This is an application under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter “the Act”). The prayer is for appointment of a sole Arbitrator. Initially the respondent disputed the existence of the arbitration agreement and took up the plea that there was no subsisting valid arbitration agreement between the parties. As such the disputes were not referable to arbitration.
Be that as it may, during the course of hearing of this application, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, without prejudice to his rights and contentions, stated that he has no objection -2- to the appointment of the sole Arbitrator. Thus, with the consent of the counsel for the parties, Shri A.J. Dholakia, retired District Judge, is appointed as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate and decide the dispute between the parties. The parties are entitled to file their claims/counter claims before the sole Arbitrator. All the pleas as are available to them, including under Section 16 of the Act, are kept open.
Operative part
Application is disposed of accordingly. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. CHIEF JUSTICE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Application is disposed of accordingly
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 10 Aug 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.