Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kishan Lal vs Kanhaiyalal & Ors on 6 April, 2018
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Arbitration Application No. 17 / 2017
Kishan Lal S/o Tulsiram, Aged About 70 Years, By Caste Darji,
Resident of Kelwa, Tehsil and District Rajsamand.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Kanhaiyalal S/o Magan Lal
2. Shambhulal S/o Magan Lal
3. Subhash S/o Madan Lal
4. Dheeraj S/o Ramlal
5. Madan Lal S/o Tulsiram
6. Sukhlal S/o Tulsiram, (All by Caste Darji, Resident of Kelwa,
Tehsil and District Rajsamand).
7. Ramlal S/o Hema, By Caste Taili, Resident of Nichli Miyari,
Kelva, Tehsil and District Rajsamand.
8. Prakash S/o Sohan Lal, By Caste Darji, Resident of Kelva, Tehsil
and District Rajsamand.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.L.Choudhary.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahendra Trivedi.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order 06/04/2018 This application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act') has been filed by the applicant seeking appointment of an arbitrator for adjudication of dispute and difference between the parties.
It is inter alia indicated in the application that parties entered into a partnership and a partnership deed was executed (2 of 3) [ARBAP-17/2017] on 29/4/2013 for undertaking business of mining quartz & feldspar and mining of minerals & processing including export and import. Clause 12 of the partnership deed provided for resolving of the dispute among partners through arbitration. It is inter alia indicated that as the difference arose between the parties, a notice dated 6/1/2017 was sent seeking appointment of arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties, however, as the respondents have not agreed for appointment of arbitrator, an independent arbitrator may be appointed by the Court.
A response has been filed to the application by respondent no.1, wherein, the execution of the partnership deed dated 29/4/2013 has been admitted, however, it is submitted that the same was not acted upon, as neither the partnership was got registered nor the mining lease no.75/2009 was ever transferred in the name of said partnership firm. Based on the said submissions, it is prayed that the application be rejected.
Learned counsel for the parties made submissions in consonance with the pleadings of the parties, as noticed hereinbefore.
The existence of the arbitration agreement between the parties is not disputed. Section 11 (6-A) of the Act provides that the Court while considering any application under Section 11 (4), (5) and (6) of the Act will confine to the examination of existence of arbitration agreement.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Duro Felguera vs. Gangavaram Limited : (2017) 9 SCC 729 has laid down that the Court should and needs to look into the existence of arbitration (3 of 3) [ARBAP-17/2017] agreement - nothing more nothing less.
In view of the above, as it is apparent that the dispute has arisen between the parties and there exists an arbitration agreement between the parties, the dispute among them deserves to be referred for arbitration.
In view of the above discussion, the application is allowed. Mr. Basanti Lal Babel (Retd. RHJS), resident of Lawa Sardargarh, Tehsil - Amet, District - Rajsamand (Mobile No.99280-23548) is appointed as a sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties in terms of the arbitration agreement and as per the Manual of Procedure for Alternative Dispute Resolution, 2009, as amended upto date.
(ARUN BHANSALI)J. Baweja-4