THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.61 of 2025

ORDER:

Sri Tarun G.Reddy, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Krishna C.V.Grandhi, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Ramu Muchakurthi, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has been filed seeking appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

3. Admittedly, the applicant has taken four insurance policies from the respondent for its factory. Clause 13 of the said policies contains the arbitration clause, which reads thus:

“13. If any dispute or difference shall arise as to the quantum to be paid under this policy (liability being otherwise admitted) such difference shall independently of all other questions be referred to the decision of a sole arbitrator to be appointed in writing by the parties to or if they cannot agree upon a single arbitrator within 30 days of any party invoking arbitration, the same shall be referred to a panel of three arbitrators, comprising of two arbitrators, one to be appointed by each of the parties to the dispute/difference and the third arbitrator to be appointed by such two arbitrators and arbitration shall be conducted under and in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

It is clearly agreed and understood that no difference or dispute shall be referable to arbitration as hereinbefore provided, if the Company has disputed or not accepted liability under or in respect of this policy.

It is hereby expressly stipulated and declared that it shall be a condition precedent to any right of action or suit upon this policy that the award by such arbitrator/ arbitrators of the amount of the loss or damage shall be first obtained.”

4. On 13.05.2016, fire broke out at the factory premises of the applicant causing severe loss and damage. The applicant submitted its insurance claims and received certain amount. The applicant issued notices to the respondents for release of the balance payment.

5. When the respondents failed to make the due payment, the applicant got issued a legal notice to the respondents for appointment of an Arbitrator, but the same could not fetch any result.

6. It appears that there exists a dispute between the parties which needs to be resolved through arbitration procedure, as per the dispute resolution clause. Both the learned counsel for the parties fairly submitted that an arbitrator needs to be appointed to resolve the dispute. They agreed that Sri Justice G.Raghuram, Former Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, may be appointed as an arbitrator.

7. Therefore, Sri Justice G.Raghuram, Former Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh (Resident of Plot No.1099, Road No.36, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad – 33, Mobile No.9818839212 and 9440621412) is appointed as sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties.

8. The sole arbitrator shall proceed with the arbitral proceedings in accordance with law.

9. Accordingly, the Arbitration Application is allowed. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed.

_________________________

SUJOY PAUL, ACJ

02.05.2025 vs/gms