PARVARTIYA JAN KALYAN SANSTHAN Vs. CHIEF PROJECT DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is filed, under Section 11 (4) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the "1996 Act"?), seeking appointment of an Arbitrator. The agreement entered into between the parties provides for settlement of disputes. Clause 8 of the said agreement reads thus:

(2.) The existence of an arbitration clause in the agreement is not disputed by the respondents. The only contention, urged on their behalf by Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel, is that, since the entire agreement was terminated by proceedings dated 30.03.2016, the arbitration clause in the agreement would not survive after termination of the agreement in its entirety and, consequently, the applicant cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 11 of the Act seeking appointment of an Arbitrator.

(3.) It is well settled that unilateral termination of the agreement by one party would not obliterate the arbitration clause in the agreement. In Magma Leasing and Finance Ltd. Vs. Potluri Madhavilata :(2009) 10 SCC 103, the Supreme Court observed: