MAYA TRADELINKS LIMITED Vs. KIRTI KUMAR KABRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is knocking at the doors of writ court seeking an order for the appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudging the alleged dispute in question; after service of notice, the respondents having entered appearance through their counsel, resist the Petition contending there is no dispute at all and therefore, appointment cannot be made; both the sides have relied upon an avalanche of decisions of which relevant are discussed hereinbelow.

(2.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court is inclined to appoint an Arbitrator for the following reasons:

(3.) Learned Sr. Advocate Smt.Jayna Kothari heavily banked upon the decision of the Apex Court in Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited Vs. Northern Coal Field Limited, (2020) 2 SCC 455 which discussed about limited grounds such as limitation, etc., for not appointing an Arbitrator; however, the argued case of the respondents does not fit into the ratio of this decision; it hardly needs to be stated that a decision is an authority for the proposition that it actually lays down in the fact matrix of the case and not for all that which logically follows from what has been laid down vide Lord Halsbury in Quinn Vs. Leathem (1901) A.C. 495.