| |
CDJ 2026 Jhar HC 115
|
| Court : High Court of Jharkhand |
| Case No : Arbitration Application No. 53 of 2025 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S. SONAK |
| Parties : Pathkind Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd., A company registered under Companies Act, New Delhi Versus M/s Pan IIT Alumini Reach for Jharkhand & Another |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Mukesh Bihari Lal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ashuthosh Anand, AAG-III. |
| Date of Judgment : 20-03-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11 -
Comparative Citation:
2026 JHHC 7829,
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
- Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
- Schedule Fourth of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
- Stamp Act, 1899
2. Catch Words:
- Arbitration
- Arbitration clause
- Service of process
- Amendment of parties
- Appointment of arbitrator
- Costs
3. Summary:
The applicant sought to drop respondents 3, 4, 5 and 6, which the court permitted. The first respondent’s refusal to accept service was deemed valid service. A dispute exists between the applicant and the first two respondents concerning an agreement dated 07.08.2020 that contains an arbitration clause. The court noted that Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 limits its scope to the existence of the arbitration clause, which is undisputed. Consequently, the court appointed Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath as the arbitrator, with fees to be shared equally among the three parties as per Schedule IV of the Act. All substantive contentions are left for the arbitrator to decide. The application was disposed of without any order for costs, and parties are directed to act on an authenticated copy of the order.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
1. Heard Mr. Mukesh Bihari Lal, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned Addl. A.G.-III for the respondent no.2.
2. Mr Ashutosh Anand states that respondent Nos. 3, 5 and 6 are not necessary parties to this application. This is not disputed by the learned counsel for the applicant, who seeks leave to drop them with liberty to take out independent proceedings against them, should any cause of action arise. In addition, the learned counsel for the applicant also seeks leave to drop the 4th respondent with liberty, in the above terms.
3. Accordingly, leave is granted to drop / delete respondent Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6. Necessary amendment to be carried out forthwith.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the 1st respondent has refused service, as is evident from the service report. He submits that such refusal amounts to good service upon the party refusing to accept legitimate service. This submission is accepted.
5. The record shows that disputes have arisen between the applicant and 1st and 2nd respondents in relation to the Agreement dated 07.08.2020, which is placed on record. Clause 16 of this agreement contains an arbitration clause.
6. Mr Ashutosh Anand raised several objections, but the same relate mainly to the merits of the matter. He did not and could not, however, dispute the existence of the arbitration clause in the tripartite agreement between the applicant, 1st respondent and 2nd respondent.
7. The scope of proceedings under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is extremely limited, given the decisions of the ‘Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Stamp Act, 1899 In Re’((2024) 6 SCC 1) and SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Krish Spinning((2024) 12 SCC 1).. The scope extends to examining the existence of the arbitration clause.
8. Since, in this case, there is and there can be no dispute about the existence of the arbitration clause, a case is made out for appointment of Arbitrator to arbitrate into the disputes that have arisen between the parties.
9. Accordingly, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath, former Judge of this Court, residing at Flat No. 201, Block- B, Shivam Heights, Ghaghra, Namkum, Ranchi, is appointed as Arbitrator to arbitrate the disputes that have arisen between the parties. His fees shall be in accordance with Schedule Fourth of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the same shall be borne equally by all the three parties, i.e., the applicant, 1st respondent and 2nd respondent.
10. All contentions of all parties, including those of the respondents on the issues of merit and maintainability are left open to be decided by the learned Arbitrator in the first instance.
11. This application is disposed of, in the above terms without any order for costs.
12. All concerned must act on an authenticated copy of this order.
|
| |
