Subscribe to the Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal Subscribe Now!

November 2022

Allied Laws

By Dr. K. Shivaram | Senior Advocate
Rahul K. Hakani | Shashi Bekal | Advocates
Reading Time 6 mins
34 State of HP vs. Bmd Pvt. Ltd.
AIR 2022 Himachal Pradesh 134
Date of order: 2nd June, 2022
Bench: Sandeep Sharma J.
 
Arbitration clause – Appointment of Arbitrator – Not open for one of the parties to file an application for the appointment of Arbitrator when both the parties have subjected to its jurisdiction [S. 11(6), 13, Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996]
 
FACTS 
 

A dispute arose between the parties and the Respondent served a Notice requesting for a refund of the upfront premium, and in the event the same is not responded, the notice to be treated as an invocation of the arbitration clause as per the agreement between the parties. The Petitioner did not respond to the said notice. Therefore, the Respondent sent a request to the Arbitrator to proceed with the Arbitration. However, pursuant to the Arbitrator taking cognizance of the proceedings, the Petitioner filed this application before the Court for the appointment of the Arbitrator.
 
HELD

The Petitioner admitted to receiving the Notice which invoked the Arbitration and not objected to the same. Therefore, as the Arbitrator was appointed as per the arbitration clause contained in the agreement between the parties, and the Petitioner had subjected itself to the jurisdiction, it was not open for the Petitioner to challenge the m