Trending :
Lawtext
Search
Login / Register
Sign In
HomeJudgement
Scroll Down To Discover
High Court

High Court of Judicature at Bombay Decides Application for Appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The application pertained to a dispute arising from an agreement with an arbitration clause where the parties failed to agree on the appointment of an arbitrator.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
Admin
2026-08-23 17:18:49
  • 88
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Issue of Consideration

ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 35 OF 2025

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (BOM) (06) 36

Arbitration Application No. 35 of 2025

2025-06-18

Somashekhar Sundaresan, J.

For Applicant: Mr. Rahul Totala a/w Chaitanya Mendon, Mitesh Jain i/b Swapnil Lohiya; For Respondent: Mr. Nikhil Sakhardande a/w Paras Parekh, Abhineet Sharma & Kandarp Trivedi i/b RHP Partners

Samruddhi Industries Ltd. Through Its Authorised Signatory Mr Ramakant Narayan Malu

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Arbitration application for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Remedy Sought

Appointment of arbitrator by the court

Filing Reason

Dispute between parties with arbitration agreement, unable to agree on arbitrator

Judgment Excerpts

This Application has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act...

Procedural History

Application filed, heard and reserved on April 15, 2025, and pronounced on June 18, 2025.

Acts & Sections

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 11
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Tags :
arbitration appointment of arbitrator Section 11 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 High Court

Pay once for this file or subscribe for unlimited downloads

Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Closes Writ Petition After Encroachments Removed from Cart Track. Block Development Officer confirmed removal of obstructions, rendering petition infructuous. 2026-09-11 18:42:45
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Disposes of Writ Petition Challenging Commissioner's Order in Land Records Dispute, Subject to Outcome of Civil Suits. Parties Agree That Observations in Impugned Order Shall Not Prejudice Rights in Pending Regular Civil Suit No. 79... 2026-09-11 18:41:59
Categories
Popular Tags
writ petition Natural Justice acquittal murder compensation burden of proof limitation Article 226 benefit of doubt judgment
Follow Us

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensation Cases,...

Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Dispute — Upho...

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Suit for Spec...

Bombay High Court Dismisses MBBS Student's Writ Petition Seeking Fourth Attempt in Anatomy...

High Court of Bombay Hears Writ Petitions Challenging Tenancy Orders Under Bombay Tenancy ...

Supreme Court Acquits Appellant in Prevention of Corruption Act Case Due to Absence of Pec...

Supreme Court Modifies High Court Order Appointing Different Arbitrator Under Section 11 o...

Supreme Court Upholds Scrutiny Committee Invalidation of Scheduled Tribe Caste Claim but P...

Supreme Court Allows Homebuyers' Appeal and Waives Time Extension Charges Imposed by Devel...

Supreme Court Dismisses Insurer's and Claimant's Appeals in Motor Accident Death Compensat...

Lost Your Password?