AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. The notices sent to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to the address mentioned in the said service agreement are returned unserved with postal endorsement that 'Addressee left'. Notice sent to the address available amounts to service. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
The present Arbitration Application is filed under Section 11 (5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter 'the Act. 1996') for appointment of Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
Both the applicant and the respondents have entered into a service agreement dated 25.11.2019 on the specific terms and conditions mentioned therein. According to the terms of the said agreement, the applicant provided Human Resource Management Services to the respondents including pay rolls.
The respondents have to pay an amount of Rs.50,01,570/- as on 31.08.2025 to the applicant but they did not pay the said amount. Thus, disputes arose between the applicant and the respondents with regard to the said agreement. The same are arbitrable in nature. Therefore, invoking Clause No.VIII of the said service agreement, applicant had issued notice under Section 21 of the Act, 1996, dated 19.06.2025 to the respondents with a request to name the arbitrator mutually agreeably to both the parties, failing which it shall initiate proceedings in terms of Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an independent arbitrator.
It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that respondents have changed the address. Even though, the notices were sent to both the addresses, there is no response from the respondents. Therefore, left with no other option, the applicant invoked the said arbitration clause. Therefore, the present application is filed seeking appointment of Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
In the light of the said submissions, Clause VIII of the said service agreement dated 25.11.2019 deals with 'Dispute Resolution'. It is relevant and extracted below:-
In case of disputes or differences arising between the parties hereof, the same shall be subject matter of Arbitration and any subsequent related amendments thereto unless settled amicably between the parties hereto shall be referred to Arbitration. The Arbitration proceedings shall be at Hyderabad and the language shall be in English. The decision and the award of the Arbitrator upon the Dispute shall be Final and binding on the Parties. Sole Arbitrator shall be appointed whoever agreeable to both the parties and the Award passed by him shall be the Final. The appointment of Arbitrators shall be through issuing the notice. The provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and amendments from time to time shall be applicable for all purpose of dispute resolution.
According to the applicant, there are disputes between the applicant and the respondents with regard to the service agreement dated 25.11.2019 and the same are arbitral in nature.
In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present Arbitration Application is allowed. Accordingly, Smt. D. Sarala Kumari, Retired District Judge, Flat No.405, Vijay Vihar Apartment, Road No.2, Green Hills Colony, Near Karachi Bakery, Beside Victoria Memorial Metro Station, Kothapet, Ranga Reddy District (Mobile No.9440363032), is appointed as sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The parties are at liberty to take all the available pleas and defences before the learned sole Arbitrator.
Consequently, miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, in this Arbitration Application, shall stand closed.