- (1.) Instant application Under Section 11 was moved before learned District Judge, Kota who was one of the designated authority exercising powers under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
(2.) In recent decision of Supreme Court in M/s. S.B.P. & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd.,2006 AIR(SC)450 , it has been observed that Under Section 11 the authority designated by Chief Justice can only be a Judge of the High Court and learned District Judge cannot be a designated authority. Be that as it may, the agreement was entered between the parties on 22nd May, 2005 on certain terms & conditions and under Clause 17 of the agreement, it was mutually agreed that if there will be any difference or dispute between the parties, it will be referred to the decision of a single arbitrator. The extract of Clause 17, which is relevant for the purpose, reads as under: Any dispute, difference or question whichmay arise at any time hereafter between the Institute and the Business Partner touching the true construction of this agreement or the rights and liabilities ofthe parties hereto shall unless otherwiseherein expressly provided be referred to the decision of a single arbitrator or tobe agreed upon between the parties or indefault of agreement to be appointed at the request the either party in accordancewith and subject to the provision of thearbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 orany statutory modification or re-enactmentthereof for the time being in force.
(3.) Claim of Rs. 4,93,734.50 Paisa has been estimated which arises from agreement executed between the parties. Since the dispute could not have been resolved, the applicant earlier served notice on 4th November, 2004 & 8th December, 2004 and thereafter on 24th May, 2005 and within 30 days of service of said notice when the party failed to appoint sole Arbitrator for settlement of their dispute, instant application was filed in this Court Under Section 11 for appointment of Arbitrator.;