255 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ARB-664-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 20.01.2026 M/S SEA KING KNITWEARS ....Petitioner(s)

Versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND OTHERS .....Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present: Mr. Saksham Parmar, Advocate for Mr.Charanpuneet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Arpit Gaur, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2.

(Through Video Conferencing).

None for respondents No.3 and 4.

****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI , J. (Oral)

CM-25408-CII-2025 The present application has been filed for placing on record reply alongwith Annexures R-1 to R-4 on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2.

For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is allowed.

Reply alongwith Annexures R-1 to R-4 is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

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 independent Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences between the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a Company which has a factory in Ludhiana and with regard to three different premises, the petitioner had purchased three insurance policies from the respondents. He submitted that one insurance policy was purchased from respondents No.1 and 2, namely United India Insurance Company Limited and two policies were purchased from respondents No.3 and 4, namely Shriram General Insurance Company Limited and all the aforesaid polices are attached with the present petition as Annexures A-2, A-4 and A- 5, which contain arbitration clauses. He submitted that the arbitration clauses which are contained in all the three policies are identical. He further submitted that a fire broke out in different premises of the factory of the petitioner and the said premises are covered under the aforesaid three policies. He submitted that the respondent- United India Insurance Company Limited had appeared and filed its reply but the respondent-Shriram General Insurance Company Limited has chosen not to appear despite being served.

3. Learned counsel submitted that after the incident of fire, a joint surveyor was appointed by both the insurance companies and some amount was paid to the petitioner but the same did not satisfy the claim of the petitioner and therefore, a dispute arose between the parties and the petitioner served a common legal dated 07.09.2025 upon both the insurance companies vide Annexure A-10 invoking the arbitration clauses but no response was received from them and therefore, the present application has been filed under Section 11 of the Act for appointment of an independent Sole Arbitrator.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that as per the aforesaid arbitration clause, first of all the matter is to be referred to a Sole Arbitrator and in case the parties do not agree upon a Sole Arbitrator within 30 days, then the matter is to be referred to a panel of the arbitrators. He submitted that since the aforesaid mechanism has failed and the respondents did not even respond to the legal notice, this Court may appoint an independent Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of the claims.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-United India Insurance Company Ltd. through video conferencing submitted that there is neither any dispute with regard to the existence of the aforesaid arbitration clauses in the aforesaid policies nor there is any dispute with regard to invocation of the aforesaid arbitration clauses by issuance of notice vide Annexure A-10 by the petitioner. He submitted that the only objection of respondent-United India Insurance Company Ltd. is that the petitioner has already received the entire money from the respondent-Company and has also given his no objection stating that he has no further claim and therefore, the petitioner is estopped from raising any further claim