The Council of Architecture has jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator even if one of the partners is an architect, and a party to an arbitration is entitled to take legally permissible contentions, not malafide arguments.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

i. TO appoint any Retired District Judge/Architects as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the claim made by the petitioner before the Arbitration Centre, Bengaluru as per the terms and conditions of the agreement dtd. 26/03/2018 produced vide Annexure-B to this petition considering the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.

ii. Pass any appropriate order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The petitioner and the respondent had entered into an agreement for 'Interior Architectural Services and Construction/Execution' on 26/3/2018, which is governed by an arbitration clause, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: "All disputes or differences which may arise between the Client and the Architect under "Conditions of Engagement and Scale of Charges" with regard to the meaning or interpretation or mater or things done or to be done in pursuance hereof, such disputes and differences shall be referred for arbitration to the Council of Architecture. The arbitrator shall be appointed by the President, Council of Architecture. The arbitration shall be conducted as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The decision and award of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the Architect and the Client.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the petitioner had approached the Council of Architecture, the said Council had rejected the claim of the petitioner to appoint an arbitrator on account of the petitioner being a Limited Liability Partnership and that one of the partners M/s.Arun John Kallumkal is not an architect.

4. Sri.Rajashekar B.G., learned counsel for the petitioner would however submit that the other partner Sri.M.S.Snehal G.Pawar is an architect registered on the rolls of Council of Architecture. If that be so, it was for the petitioner to reply to the letter dtd. 15/9/2020 and appraise the Counsel of Architecture on the said matter.

5. Sri.Parikshith Warrier, learned counsel for the respondent would however submit that since the Council of Architecture has stated that LLP cannot be a member of the Council and one of the partners of LLP is not an architect, the arbitration clause itself is non-est and void and cannot be relied upon. Apart there from, learned counsel for the respondent submits that in the notice issued under Sec. 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 dtd. 5/4/2019 produced at Annexure-C, the petitioner has not specifically invoked the arbitration clause but has only stated that the matter would be referred to the Council of Architecture. Therefore, he submits that the arbitration clause is void ab initio.

6. Heard Sri.Rajashekar B.G., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Parikshith Warrier, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the papers.

7. As regards the first issue of the Council of Architecture having refused appointment of arbitrator, it is seen from the letter dtd. 15/9/2020 that the refusal is on account of the petitioner being registered as LLP and one of the partners not being an architect. In such a situation, it is for the petitioner to approach the Council of Architecture placing the facts on record that one other partners Sri.M.S.Snehal G.Pawar is an architect. I am of the considered opinion that even if one of the partners is an architect registered with the Council of Architecture, the said Council would have jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator. The Council for Architecture is directed to consider the request of the petitioner in the light of the above observations.

8. As regards the contention of the respondent that the refusal by the Council of Architecture goes to the root of the matter rendering the clause itself invalid and non-est. I am of the considered opinion that the same is a completely malafide argument addressed by the respon