341 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ARB-23-2026(O&M)

Date of Decision: 05.03.2026 JASBIR SINGH AND OTHERS ....Petitioner(s)

Versus M/S GURMEET SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present: Mr.Prateek Sodhi, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate, for the respondents.

****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI , J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) praying for appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences which have arisen between the parties pertaining to an agreement entered into between the parties.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that there is a partnership agreement (Annexure P-1) between the parties wherein there exists an arbitration clause i.e. Clause 18, which provides that in case of any dispute between the parties to the deed in any way whatsoever, the same shall be referred to a sole arbitrator appointed /approved by the majority of the parties. He submitted that since a dispute arose between the parties, the petitioners have invoked the aforesaid arbitration clause by issuance of a notice to the respondents vide Annexure P-2 but no such steps were taken by the respondents for appointment of an independent Sole Arbitrator and therefore, the present application has been filed under Section 11 of the Act seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no dispute with regard to existence of the aforesaid agreement and the arbitration clause contained therein and the invocation thereof by sending of a notice by the petitioner vide Annexure P-2. He also submitted that he has instructions to state that any independent Sole Arbitrator may be appointed by this Court, since the mechanism for appointment of the Arbitrator by mutual consent has failed.

4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the claim amount is not ascertained as of date and may be so stated in the claim statement.

5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present petition is allowed. Mr. Vikas Lochab, Advocate, resident of House No. 2848, Sector 21, Panchkula, Haryana, Mobile No. 7818000002, E-mail ID: vikaslochabadv@gmail.com, is nominated as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties, subject to compliance of statutory provisions including Section 12 of the Act.

6. As per learned counsel for petitioner, the claim in the present petition is not ascertained as of date but the same be ascertained at the time of filing claim statement. The relief sought for has to be quantified in terms of the facts of the dispute and the fee of the Arbitrator shall depend upon such amount. Therefore, in case no claim is ascertained in the claim statement, then the Arbitrator shall fix his fee in view of Section 31A of the Act.

7. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Arbitrator on date, time and place to be fixed and communicated by the learned Arbitrator at his convenience.

8. Learned Arbitrator is also requested to complete the proceedings as per the time limit prescribed under Section 29-A of the Act.

9. A request letter alongwith a copy of the order be sent to Mr. Vikas Lochab, Advocate.

05.03.2026 (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)

rakesh JUDGE