ANIL KUMAR versus B.S. NEELKANTA & ORS.

ANIL KUMAR versus B.S. NEELKANTA & ORS.

From the material on record, disputes subsist between the parties regarding rights and obligations under the agreements, and these cannot be resolved without evidence. There is a clear arbitration agreement, with live issues including breach of the terms and shareholding. The Arbitrator, in accordance with Section 16, is competent to rule on his jurisdiction and objections regarding the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. Accordingly, appointment of an arbitrator is warranted.

Parties
Petitioner: Anil Kumar; Respondents: B.S. Neelkanta & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Petition / Application for Appointment of Arbitrator Under Section 11 (5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Outcome
Application allowed
Legal Topics
Appointment of Arbitrator, International Commercial Arbitration, Jurisdiction Under Section 11
Arbitration Appointment of Arbitrator International Commercial Arbitration Jurisdiction Under Section 11

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anil Kumar

Petitioner

B.S. Neelkanta & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Petition / Application for Appointment of Arbitrator Under Section 11 (5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a live dispute subsists between the parties under the arbitration agreement dated 19th January 2004
  2. 2 Whether the petitioner has locus standi under the agreement to seek appointment of arbitrator
  3. 3 Whether the dispute is dead or outside purview of arbitration agreement

Ratio Decidendi

From the material on record, disputes subsist between the parties regarding rights and obligations under the agreements, and these cannot be resolved without evidence. There is a clear arbitration agreement, with live issues including breach of the terms and shareholding. The Arbitrator, in accordance with Section 16, is competent to rule on his jurisdiction and objections regarding the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. Accordingly, appointment of an arbitrator is warranted.

Court Disposition

Application allowed

Orders

  • Mr. Justice M. Jagannadha Rao, a former Judge of the Supreme Court, appointed as sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the claims/disputes raised by the petitioner, subject to his consent.
  • Arbitrator to deal with the matter uninfluenced by any prior observations of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh or this order.