Chennai HC Appoints Sole Arbitrator Over KONE’s ₹13.9 Lakh Claim Against Shree Vardhman For Elevator Maintenance

In brief

The question

1. Whether a valid arbitration agreement existed between the parties and had been invoked so as to warrant appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11.

The court held

The petition was allowed.

It also directed

Mr. Niranjan Rajagopalan was appointed sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from the contracts dated 27 January 2022 and 2 September 2022.

The seat and venue were fixed at Chennai, and the arbitration was directed to be conducted under the auspices of the Madras High Court Arbitration Centre, with fees and administrative expenses shared equally. The arbitrator must file the prescribed disclosure, and the parties’ merits contentions were left open.

No order as to costs was made.

01Facts

KONE sought appointment of a sole arbitrator concerning two annual maintenance contracts for elevators at the respondent’s Gurgaon project. The judgment identifies the contracts as dated 27 January 2022 and 2 September 2022, with a combined unpaid claim of ₹13,93,449.35, including service invoices and un-deposited TDS credit.

pp. 2–3

After demand and legal notices, KONE invoked arbitration under Section 21 by notice dated 18 July 2025; the respondent did not respond.

p. 4

The contracts provided for arbitration by a sole arbitrator appointed by KONE and conferred exclusive jurisdiction on Chennai courts.

pp. 4–5

The respondent did not appear or file a counter-affidavit in the Section 11 petition.

p. 5

02Issues

i.1. Whether a valid arbitration agreement existed between the parties and had been invoked so as to warrant appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11.

p. 6

ii.2. Whether the Madras High Court could entertain the petition in light of the contracts’ exclusive-jurisdiction clause in favour of Chennai courts.

p. 5

03Law Applied

Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was applied on the stated basis that the Court’s inquiry at this stage is confined to verifying the existence of a valid arbitration agreement.

p. 6

Section 21 governed commencement of arbitration by notice.

p. 4

The Court also directed the appointed arbitrator to make a disclosure under Section 12(1), read with the Sixth Schedule, and directed that the arbitration proceed under the Madras High Court Arbitration Centre Rules.

pp. 6–7

The contracts’ jurisdiction clause specified Chennai courts as having exclusive jurisdiction.

p. 5

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11 Section 21 Section 12

04Reasoning

The Court found that the contracts and their arbitration clause were established, and that KONE had validly invoked arbitration under Section 21.

p. 6

The respondent’s non-appearance left the petitioner’s evidence unrebutted.

p. 5

The Court treated the Chennai exclusive-jurisdiction clause as supporting its territorial jurisdiction.

p. 5

On that basis, it concluded that appointment of an independent sole arbitrator was warranted; it did not separately discuss the clause providing for appointment by KONE.

pp. 5–6