PUSHPKARAJ INFRA PROJECTS Vs. SHRESTA ASSOCIATES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As per the postal track, the notice sent to the respondent has been served on the respondent. Nevertheless, there is no representation for the respondent. Consequently, this court has to proceed to consider the case of the petitioner in the absence of the respondent.

(2.) This civil miscellaneous petition is filed under Ss. 11(5) and 11(6) r/w Sec. 11(12)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with a prayer to appoint a third arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes that have arisen between the petitioner and respondent under Clause 11 of the agreement dtd. 4/3/2020 entered into between the parties. As per Clause 11, all disputes and claims will be mutually discussed and agreed upon at site level. For all legal matters jurisdiction shall be Hubballi only. Failing amicable settlement, the dispute or claim as the case may be, shall be referred to arbitration. One arbitrator to be appointed by each party and third one to be appointed by the two arbitrators suggested by the parties.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of arbitral clause, the respondent issued notice dtd. 6/7/2021 to the petitioner terminating the agreement with immediate effect from the date of the notice. Consequently, the petitioner issued notice dtd. 16/7/2021 appointing Sri.Amjad I.Khan as the arbitrator and informed the respondent to appoint second arbitrator within a period 30 days. The respondent, vide communication dtd. 20/8/2021 appointed Sri.S.H.Mittalkod, retired District Judge as the arbitrator from the side of the respondent. Thereafter, there was no consensus in appointing a third arbitrator. Therefore, the petitioner is before this court.