TATA ELXSI LIMITED BANGALORE Vs. ANAND JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 11 (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996 has been filed with the prayer to appoint an arbitrator. There is no stipulation for the appointment of the arbitrator in the agreement and it is only by the virtue of provisions of Section 7 (4xc) it is contended that the condition for appointment of arbitrator in the agreement should be construed 'in writing'. A notice dated 21-7-1999 was sent by the petitioner alleging that "you have also agreed with our client that the issues can be referred to arbitration in Bangalore". It is also mentioned that if the respondents failed to settle the matter within 21 days from the receipt of notice legal action would be initiated. No reply was sent within the stipulated time. On 12-8-1999, it was replied that the 'averments in the notice are refuted'. Petitioner thereafter sent another letter dated 22-9-1999 that a valid arbitration agreement has come into existence. Reply of this letter was sent on 28-9-1999 refuting that the respondents have ever agreed to refer the dispute to the arbitration.

(2.) ON behalf of the respondent it is submitted that in accordance with the notification dated 13-11-1996, the scheme which has been framed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of High Court of Karnataka has stipulated that original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof has to be given. The question where there is an oral agreement for arbitration is always a disputed question and therefore the Arbitration Act has contemplated the arbitration agreement in writing and the circumstances under which it could be considered to be in writing are given under Section 7 (4kc ).

(3.) I have considered over the matter. Section 7 (4) of the Act reads as under: