ARB.P./325/2017 of GURCHAIT SINGH CHIMA Vs AMRISH GUPTA
Parties
- GURCHAIT SINGH CHIMA (PETITIONER)
- AMRISH GUPTA (RESPONDENT)
Cited by (1)
Counts citations resolved within this build's own ingested judgment corpus. The true corpus-wide count will be higher until more of the corpus is ingested.
Cites (0 resolved of 1 detected)
1 case citation detected in this judgment's own text, but none resolved to a judgment page in this build yet.
Full text
solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ARB.P. 325/2017
GURCHAIT SINGH CHIMA..... PetitionerThroughMr.K.Singhal and Ms.Vani Singhal,Advs.
versus
AMRISH GUPTA
..... RespondentThroughMr.Ashutosh Gupta and Mr.SurajNarain Shukla, Advs.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
12.10.2017
1.This petition is filed under section 11(5) & (6) of the Arbitration andConciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of Sole Arbitrator. The caseof the petitioner is that an Agreement to Sell was executed on 7.8.2014 forpurchase of property being B-II/46 situated at Mohan Co-operativeIndustrial Estate, New Delhi for total consideration of Rs.11 crores.Disputes having arisen between the parties the petitioner is stated to havesent notice dated 14.3.2017 seeking invocation of the arbitration clauseand seeking appointment of an independent Arbitrator.
2.As per the petitioner as per the arbitration clause in the agreement incase of any disputes, the same shall be referred to the Sole Arbitrator ShriVineet Malhotra, Advocate.
3.Learned counsel for the respondent has entered appearance. Hesubmits that the Agreement to Sell is forged document and does not bear
the signatures of the respondent. However, counsel for the respondentsubmits that without prejudice to the rights and contentions including thecontention that the agreement is forged document he has no objection incase retired High Court Judge is appointed as Sole Arbitrator toadjudicate the disputes.
4.Learned counsel for the petitioner refutes this allegation made by therespondent.
5.Accordingly, Justice Manmohan Sarin (Mobile No. [REDACTED]) isappointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between theparties. All the issues are left open including the plea of the respondentabout the agreement being forged document. The learned Arbitrator mayfix his fee in consultation with the learned counsel for the parties.
6.Petition stands disposed of.
OCTOBER 12, 2017
JAYANT NATH, J