RAMESH RAMCHANDRA KALYANKAR Vs. SURESH K. HAWARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these two arbitration petitions filed under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the applicants in both these matters seeks appointment of arbitrator in terms of clause 29 of the agreement entered into between the parties.

(2.) Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners invited my attention to the clause 29 of the agreement and also the correspondence entered into between the parties. He submits that both the parties have suggested two different names. The respondents however have not agreed to the name suggested by the petitioners.

(3.) The arbitration petitions are opposed by the respondents on the ground that since there was no consensus on the name of the learned arbitrator between the parties, the said arbitration agreement referred in clause 29 of the contract has automatically become inoperative and thus disputes and differences between the parties shall be subject to the court situated at Karjat, Thane which alone has jurisdiction to entertain and try the dispute between the parties.