01Facts
The petitioner Society and respondent developer entered into an agreement in 2002, followed by a Modified Agreement dated 4 June 2009 containing an arbitration clause.
pp. 2–4 · ¶ 2In earlier proceedings, an arbitrator’s award was set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, with liberty reserved to the Society to commence arbitration afresh; the decision was upheld in appeal.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 3The Society then issued a notice invoking arbitration under Section 21, but the respondents did not respond.
p. 4 · ¶ 4 · p. 5 · ¶ 5The respondents opposed the present appointment petition on the ground that the Society had already approached the Court in the earlier proceedings.
p. 5 · ¶ 602Issues
i.1. Whether the earlier arbitration proceedings barred the Society from seeking appointment of an arbitrator afresh.
pp. 5–6 · ¶ 7ii.2. Whether the Court should appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act to resolve the disputes under the Modified Agreement.
p. 6 · ¶ 803Law Applied
The Court applied Sections 11(6) and 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Section 21 concerns commencement of arbitral proceedings upon a request to refer a dispute to arbitration; Section 11(6) provides for Court intervention in the appointment process where the agreed procedure does not result in an appointment.
The Court also applied the arbitration clause in the Modified Agreement, which provided for appointment of an arbitrator by mutual agreement.
p. 4 · ¶ 4No precedent was cited.
Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11Section 34Section 21
04Reasoning
The Court rejected the respondents’ maintainability objection because the earlier judgment setting aside the award had expressly reserved liberty to the Society to commence arbitration afresh, and that judgment had been upheld on appeal.
pp. 5–6 · ¶ 7The Society had invoked the arbitration clause by issuing a Section 21 notice, and the agreement contained an arbitration clause covering disputes between the parties.
p. 4 · ¶ 4 · p. 6 · ¶ 8The Court therefore found that appointment of a sole arbitrator was warranted.
05Holding
The petition was allowed.
pp. 6–7 · ¶ 9Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajit J. Gunjal, former Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, was appointed sole arbitrator to hear the disputes at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru.
pp. 6–7 · ¶ 9All claims and contentions were left open, and the parties were directed to appear before the Centre’s Director on 16 December 2026 at 11:30 a.m.
pp. 6–7 · ¶ 9Original Court PDF
M/S BEML EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTDvsM/S SKYTOP BUILDERS PVT LTD
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
