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

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN - HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR
SATYA NARAIN VERMA S/O SHRI NANU RAM – Appellant
Versus
M/S ANUKRITI BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS – Respondent
ARBAP 142/2021



HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Arbitration Application No. 142/2021

Satya Narain Verma S/o Shri Nanu Ram, Aged About 62 Years,

R/o Villa No. 10, The Empyrean, Jaisinghpura Bas Bhankrota,

Teh. Sanganer, Jaipur-302026, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner

Versus

M/s Anukriti Builders And Developers, Through Its Partner,

Manvendra Singh Sesodia, Residing At D-172, Kewat Marg,

Pawan Path, Hanuman Nagar, Jaipur.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Mohit Khandelwal

For Respondent(s)

:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Order

05/05/2022

1.

This Arbitration Application has been filed under Section 11

of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of sole

arbitrator.

2.

It is pleaded in the application that there was an arbitration

clause in the agreement to sell executed between the parties. As

per Clause 26 of the Agreement, if the dispute was not resolved

amicably it was to be referred to arbitrator. It is also contended

that notice was given to the non-applicant on 10.09.2021 wherein

applicant suggested the name of arbitrator and requested the non-

applicant to appoint an arbitrator.

3.

No one has put in appearance on behalf of non-applicant

inspite of service.

4.

I have considered the contentions.

(2 of 2)

[ARBAP-142/2021]

5.

If any dispute, differences and controversies are claimed

between the parties, the same are required to be first settled by

mutual negotiation and if the dispute could not be resolved, the

same was to be referred to arbitrator.

6.

Since, non-applicant has not replied to the notice dated

10.09.2022 and has also not put appearance before the Court

inspite of service, the only dispute between the parties pertain to

non-registration of the sale deed, hence I deem it proper to allow

the Arbitration Application.

7.

This Court appoints Mr. Arif Mohammed Madani(Retired

District Judge) Office No.302, 3rd Floor, Felicity Tower, Near

Mahanagar Times, Sahkar Marg, Lal Kothi, Jaipur, as an Arbitrator

to decide the dispute.

8.

Accordingly, the 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.

9.

Registry is directed to intimate Mr. Arif Mohammed

Madani(Retired District Judge) Office No.302, 3rd Floor, Felicity

Tower, Near Mahanagar Times, Sahkar Marg, Lal Kothi, Jaipur and

obtain his formal consent.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

HEENA/12

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