(1.) IN this application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity, the 'Act'), the applicant has prayed for appointment of sole arbitrator to decide the dispute between the parties.
(2.) THE facts narrated by the applicant are that respondent Banco Construction is engaged in the business of civil construction work and has been allotted different construction work in different parts of State of Madhya Pradesh. On 27.1.2009, the General Manager of M.P. Rural Road Development Authority (RRDA), Project Implementation Unit -1, Khandwa allotted a work for construction/upgradation of rural road under "Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna" including maintenance for five years after construction.
(3.) SHRI Sankalp Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant relied on Clause 12 and 15 of the agreement dated 14.9.2009 (Annexure P -1). He submits that a dispute arose and, therefore, the applicant preferred representation, notice etc. to the respondent for appointment of sole arbitrator. The party No. 1 of agreement (respondent herein) was required to appoint the arbitrator as per clause 12 of Annexure P -1. As per clause 15, Shri Sankalp Sharma submits that the disputes are subject to exclusive jurisdiction of Courts at Gwalior and place of arbitration is also Gwalior. He submits that necessary formalities as per the agreement for appointment of arbitrator have been completed by the applicant and, therefore, an arbitrator be appointed. He further submits that the applicant is not the signatory of general conditions of contract (Annexure R/1) nor he is bound by this. Thus, any clause of that contract entered into between RRDA and Banco Construction cannot have any adverse impact for the purpose of relief of appointment of arbitrator. He further submits that the object and scheme of M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (Act No. 29 of 83) (hereinafter called as "Adhiniyam"), makes it clear that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in the matter of present dispute.