The court upheld the enforcement of an arbitration clause despite objections regarding the respondent's non-signatory status.

ORAL ORDER

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section

11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996 ( for short, 'Act') seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute and difference between the parties herein in terms of Clause 9.8 of the Service Agreement dated 24.01.2022 as per Annexure-A.

2. Petitioner is a full service boutique design firm, focused on creating unique and personal designs for modern homes. Respondent approached the petitioner to design her home at No.E-504, Plot Nos. 22-24 and 31-33, Sy.No.83/1, Raidurg Panmakta, Hyderabad, Telangana-

500032.

3. A service agreement was executed for the same on 24.1.2022. Initially respondent made the advance payment and payment on the next two raised invoices. Respondent failed to make payment on the final invoice of Rs.10,55,223.62/ raised by the petitioner.

4. The petitioner has filed the captioned petition under Section 11(5) alleging that despite several reminders and follow up, the respondent has failed to comply with her obligations and the demand notice sent on 30.05.2023 is also countered by way of reply notice dated 13.06.2023, wherein the petitioner alleges that the respondent has taken untenable contentions. On receipt of reply, the petitioner has issued one more notice dated 14.07.2023, thereby invoking arbitration, to which respondent has replied and the petitioner alleges that the respondent has failed to confirm the appointment of sole arbitrator. Hence, the petition is filed under Section 11(5)

of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996.

5. The respondent is served with notice and the respondents have tendered appearance through learned counsel.

6. Though different objections are filed by the respondent, the counsel appearing for respondent fairly concedes with regard to the existence of arbitration clause, however, referring to objections to point out that the respondent is not signatory to the document and that hold to the present case. This is countered by the counsel appearing for the petitioner by citing a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of GOVIND RUBBER LTD.

V. LOUIS DREYFUS COMMODITIES ASIA (P) LTD.1

7. Since respondent acknowledges the existence of arbitration clause, the resistance to this petition by the

1 (2015) 13 SCC 477

respondent as indicated in the objection shall be examined by the arbitrator.

8. In the light of the foregoing, this Court concludes that the petitioner has satisfied the compliance of Section

11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996.

ORDER (a) The petition is allowed appointing Justice Shri. *P. Krishna Bhat, Former High Court Judge, as the sole arbitrator to enter reference of the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent and conduct proceeding at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru according to the Rules governing the said Arbitration Centre.

(b) All contentions inter se parties are left open for adjudication in the arbitration proceedings.

* Corrected vide chamber order dated 7.3.2025 (c) The office is directed to communicate this order to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre and to Shri *P. Krishna Bhat, Former High Court Judge, as required under the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre Rules, 2012.