ANOOP NAMBIAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner entered into Annexure 1 agreement with the 3rd respondent, a Company functioning in the Special Economic Zone, Koratty, engaged in the business of developing software. Substantial disputes have arisen between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. The petitioner issued Annexure 3 notice through his lawyer requesting the 2nd respondent to appoint an arbitrator for resolution of disputes between him and the 3 rd respondent. According to the petitioner, the request was made in view of Sec. 42(3) of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 ('SEZ Act' for short). There is no response from the 2 nd respondent yet.

(2.) This arbitration request has been filed under Sec. 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a suitable person as arbitrator to settle the dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent.

(3.) When the learned counsel for the petitioner was called upon to explain how this application can be maintained under Sec. 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act since the indispensable requirements to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court are absent, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court since the 2nd respondent has not appointed an arbitrator as provided under Sec. 42(3) of the SEZ Act. According to the learned counsel, since the competent Authority has not appointed an arbitrator the petitioner is justified in approaching this Court under Sec. 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.