SRI PRAN KRISHNA DAS Vs. KAMALA RANI DEBNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Court : This arbitration petition is for appointment of arbitrator. Mr. Karmakar, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client is partner in partnership constituted by Deed dated 1st April, 1995. The Deed carries arbitration agreement by clause 24 therein, which is reproduced below:

(2.) By letter dated 14th December, 2017, caused to be written on behalf of his client, notice of disputes arisen in respect of partnership business was given along with nominee arbitrator of his client. On failure of respondent to nominate her arbitrator, this petition made for appointment of respondent's nominee arbitrator, by Court. He submits, there is agreed procedure for appointment of arbitrators but same has failed. Court should appoint sole arbitrator considering cost impact being heavier in case arbitral tribunal consists of three arbitrators.

(3.) He submits, resistance of respondent to submit to arbitration is based on fact of civil suit filed by her, for declaration of title to properties. Though his client has filed application under section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in the civil court but said application is pending. According to him, adjudication of this petition culminating in appointment of arbitrator cannot be resisted on ground of pendency of either the suit or the section 8 application or what can be their result on adjudication. He relies on judgment of Supreme Court in Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. vs. SBI Home Finance Ltd. and Ors., reported in (2011) 5 SCC 532 , to paragraphs 32 to 38 with special emphasis on paragraph 36, which is reproduced below: