SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR
CAREER POINT LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
M/S S.B. KIDS ACADEMY PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM – Respondent
ARBAP 43 2021



HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Arbitration Application No. 43/2021

Career Point Limited, Through Its Authorised Representative Mr.

Tarun Kumar Jain S/o Late Sh. Durga Prasad Jain, Having

Registered Office At Cp Tower-1, Road, No. 1, Kota, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner

Versus

M/s S.b. Kids Academy Proprietorship Firm, Of Mrs. Pankaja

Sancheti, W/o Shri Vimalkumar Sancheti R/o Nimwadi Chowk,

Malkapur-443101, Tq Malkapur, District Buldana (Maharashtra)

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Abhishek Bhardwaj

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Aditya Sharma with Mr. Abhishek

Bhardwaj

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Judgment / Order

28/04/2022

1.

This Arbitration Application has been filed under Section 11

of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of

sole arbitrator.

2.

It is contended by counsel for the applicant that there was

arbitration clause and the arbitration clause itself mentions names

of retired District Judges and retired Judges of Rajasthan High

Court. It is prayed by the counsel that Mr. Gajendra Kumar Gaur

(Retd.) District Judge be appointed as an arbitrator.

3.

Counsel for the non-applicant/respondent has no objection to

the appointment of an arbitrator. His only concern is that he may

be permitted to virtually appear before the arbitrator as

respondent is residing at a remote area in Maharashtra.

(2 of 2)

[ARBAP-43/2021]

4.

I have considered the contentions.

5.

Since there is no dispute with regard to appointment of an

arbitrator, however, taking note of the fact that the respondent is

residing at a remote area in Maharashtra, his prayer for permitting

him to appear virtually before the arbitrator, can be considered by

the arbitrator, if such request is made before the arbitrator. Hence,

I deem it proper to allow the Arbitration Application.

6.

This Court appoints Mr. Gajendra Kumar Gaur (Retd.) District

Judge as an Arbitrator to decide the dispute.

7.

Accordingly, Arbitration Application stands allowed. The

Arbitrator shall be entitled to lay down fees as provided under

Manual of Procedure for Alternative Disputes Resolution, 2009 as

amended from time to time.

8.

Registry is directed to intimate Mr. Gajendra Kumar Gaur

(Retd.) District Judge and obtain his formal consent.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

ARTI SHARMA /15

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top