SANGITA ATULKUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. AMIT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.Sumit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, Mr.Arjun Sheth, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Ms.Jayani Shah, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and perused the records.

(2.) Petitioner is seeking for appointment of an Arbitrator under Sec. 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996 (for short "the Act") contending inter-alia that under Clause 14 of the Dispute Resolution Agreement dtd. 20/5/2020, the parties have agreed for procedure for appointment of an Arbitrator and on account of option having not been offered to petitioner to appoint the Arbitrator on her behalf and the one suggested by petitioner having been ignored by the designated institution namely International and Domestic Arbitration Center India ("M/s. IDAC", for short), this Court in exercise of powers vested under clause (c) of sub-sec. (6) of Sec. 11 may appoint the Arbitrator to resolve the disputes that have arisen between the parties.

(3.) Per contra, learned advocates appearing for the respondents who have entered appearance and filed their detailed reply have reiterated the grounds urged in the reply statement and have sought for dismissal of the petition.