VINOD NEGI Vs. GARHWAL MANDAL VIKAS NIGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application has been preferred under Sec. 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, to seek appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement contained in MOU dtd. 1/2/2021, entered into between the parties. The parties had entered into the said MOU, where under the applicant was licensed the right to excavate the minor minerals in Chugan Lot No. Yamuna 21/3, Tehsil Vikasnagar, in consequence of the tender floated by the respondent. The tenure of the MOU is stated to be for the period 2020-2025 over an area of 68.364 hectare with capacity of six lakh tonnes per mining session. The applicant claims that disputes have arisen between the parties on account of alleged breach of the MOU by the respondent. The applicant claims that the respondent has been raising illegitimate demands on the applicant. The MOU contains an arbitration clause in Clause 92, which reads as follows:

(2.) The applicant invoked the arbitration agreement while raising his claims on 6/4/2021. However, the respondent did not appoint the Arbitrator in terms of the agreement between the parties. Consequently, the applicant preferred this Arbitration Application on 6/6/2021.

(3.) Upon issuance of notice, the respondent has filed its counter-affidavit. The respondent has disclosed that the respondent has already appointed an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties vide communication dtd. 5/10/2021, which has been filed along with the counter-affidavit.