AASHIRWAD FOODS AND BEVERAGES Vs. ARUNENDRA MOHAN PATHAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has filed this application under Section 14(1)(a) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1996') for appointment of an arbitrator in place of earlier arbitrators, i.e., non-applicant Nos. 3 and 4.

(2.) Applicant and non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 are partners of a registered firm registered under the provisions of Partnership Act, named as Aashirwad Foods & Beverages, Malanpur, District Bhind having its Head Office at Gwalior. The partnership deed has been filed as Annexure A-1. There was a dispute between the partners and the non-applicant Nos. 1 appointed the non-applicant No. 3 and the non-applicant No. 2 appointed the non-applicant No. 4 as arbitrators to decide the dispute. As per the applicant only one arbitration proceeding was held on 22-9-2010 by the arbitrator and since then nothing has happened. The dispute is persisting. The applicant issued a notice, Annexure P-12 to the partners to resolve the dispute and conclude the arbitration proceedings. As per the applicant in spite of that the arbitrators have not proceeded further to conclude the arbitration proceedings and the arbitrators do not want to complete the arbitration proceedings. The applicant has also filed an application I.A. No. 13663/2010 for taking additional facts and documents on record. Along with the aforesaid application, he filed a letter of non-applicant No. 3-Mr. U.C. Verma, who was one arbitrator mentioning the fact that he does not want to continue as an arbitrator, hence, he is resigning.

(3.) The non-applicant No. 1 in reply resisted the request of the applicant for appointment of the arbitrator in place of non-applicant Nos. 3 and 4. The non-applicants submitted that the application filed by the applicant before this Court under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act of 1996 is not maintainable. It has further been submitted that this Court has no power and jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator. It has further been contended that the original arbitration proceeding has not been filed, hence, the arbitrator could not be appointed by this Court. The territorial jurisdiction of this Court has also been disputed. It has further been disputed that there is a dispute exists between the parties.