ATUL AGRAWAL Vs. ASHIMA SAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Before advertintg to the facts as contended in the AC in hand, it is relevant to mention that earlier, the applicant had filed A.C.No.12/2014 with a grievance that despite efforts made, dispute between the parties is not resolved and also as non -applicant did not respond to the notice for appointment of arbitrator, applicant had approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under sections 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1996) as per clause 24 of the agreement.

(2.) On notice, respondents had entered appearance and objected to the maintainability of the arbitration case on the premise that agreement having not been sufficiently stamped, since was not admissible, therefore, the arbitration clause as contained therein cannot be pressed into service for appointment of arbitrator. The objection being sustained by order dated 01/12/2015, the arbitration case was held not maintainable with liberty to the applicant to approach the competent authority for payment of stamp duty. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that thereafter the agreement dated 28/10/2008 (Annexure A/2) was impounded by the Collector and applicant affixed the deficit Court fee on the instrument. As such, the document became admissible in evidence.

(3.) Accordingly, the instant AC has been filed seeking relief for appointment of arbitrator in terms of clause 24 of the agreement after expiry of 30 days' of notice issued by the applicant on 07/01/2016 (Annexure A/12 colly.) explaining the area/issues of disputes and differences between the parties offering names of Hon'ble Judges (since demitted the office) as his arbitrators and requesting non - applicants to appoint an arbitrator of their choice. However, the notice has not been replied.