The court upheld the enforceability of arbitration clauses in agreements, emphasizing the necessity of resolving disputes through arbitration.

O R D E R

The petitioner and the original respondent have entered into an agreement by which the original respondent company permitted the petitioner to develop an item of property owned by them. The parties have entered into several agreements and Annexure-A is the latest agreement. The case of the petitioner is that difference of opinion arose between them and the original respondent later concerning the matters specified in Annexure-A agreement. Annexure-A agreement contains an arbitration clause which provides that disputes and differences between the parties shall be resolved by A.R No. 31 of 2016 -2-

recourse to arbitration. The case of the petitioner is that though they have called upon the original respondent to appoint an arbitrator acceptable by them for resolution of the disputes, the original respondent is not acceding to their request. Hence, this arbitration request.

2. This matter came up on several occasions.

All along, the original respondent was seeking time to file a counter affidavit in this matter. Today also, when this matter was taken up for disposal, the learned counsel for the original respondent sought time. This arbitration request was admitted as early as on 06.04.2016. It came up for hearing on 11.07.2016, 03.08.2016, 09.08.2016, 17.08.2016 and 19.08.2016. Since the original respondent had several opportunities to file a counter affidavit in the matter, I do not think that the prayer now made for time to file a counter affidavit in the matter is bona fide. As such, I am not inclined to grant the request made on behalf of the original respondent.

A.R No. 31 of 2016 -3-

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for the original respondent.

4. The additional respondents are persons who have entered into agreements with the petitioner and the original respondent to purchase portions of the building constructed by the petitioner in the property of the original respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the original respondent has not disputed the execution of Annexure-A agreement. He only pointed out that there were two earlier agreements and the petitioner has not referred to those agreements in the arbitration request. In so far as it is not disputed that Annexure-A is an agreement executed by the original respondent, there cannot be any objection to the appointment of an arbitrator as required by the petitioner in the light of clause 14 therein. Clause 14 of Annexure-A agreement reads thus:

"Both the parties hereby agree that any dispute or difference whatsoever arising between the parties out of or A.R No. 31 of 2016 -4-

relating to the construction or meaning and operation or effect of this agreement or breach thereof shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Rules of Arbitration of the Indian Council of Arbitration and the award made in pursuance thereof shall be binding on the parties."

6. When this Court indicated that the arbitration request is only to be allowed, the learned counsel for the original respondent suggested to appoint Justice R.Bhaskaran (Retd.) as the Arbitrator in this matter. The learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection to the said suggestion.

7. In the result, the arbitration request is allowed and Justice R.Bhaskaran (Retd.) is appointed as Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the petitioner and the original respondent. The Arbitrator shall commence the proceedings after notice to the parties.