The Arbitrator shall decide the same as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law and under the provisions of the Arbitration Conciliation Act, 1996.
The issue regarding the allotment of parking spaces or plaintiffs returning the promissory numbere can also be decided by the learned arbitrator.
Consent Terms are signed by the Plaintiff, Defendant No.1, Defendant No.3 and their respective Advocates.
Pursuant to the dismissal of the said Notice of Motion, the plaintiff moved the Bombay High Court under Section 11 by an application of January, 2014 for appointment of a substitute arbitrator.
However, with regard to two specific differences, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 agreed to refer the said differences to the arbitration of a retired Supreme Court Judge as follows 8 .
Undertakings, if any, given in the Consent terms by any of the parties is accepted.
area as provided in the said Development Agreement dated 27 12 2004 and the actual carpet area of the said 5 flats hereby allotted and handed over and ii the valuation of the deficient area if any, and the damages for the same.
The Plaintiff and the Defendant No.1 agree to and hereby do refer to Arbitration of Mrs. Justice Sujata Manohar Retd.
Plaintiff is permitted to withdraw the amount which is deposited by Defendant No.1 and which is lying in the suspense account of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Khar Branch, Mumbai.
This Notice of Motion was dismissed by order dated 20.9.2013 stating that an appointment can only be made for a substitute arbitrator under Section 11 5 of the Arbitration Act and number by a Notice of Motion in a disposed of suit.
Decree is passed in terms of the companysent terms.
the dispute as to i the difference in carpet area of the 5 flats agreed to be allotted as per the Development Agreement dated 27 12 2004 being Exhibit B to the Plaint by Defendant No.1 to the Plaintiff and his family members i.e. 800 sq.
Nothing much seems to have materialised in the arbitration, and despite several meetings held by the named arbitrator, the arbitration proceedings companytinued to drag on, until by a letter dated 22.01.2011, the Arbitrator resigned as arbitrator in the aforesaid matter.
Plaintiff and Defendants are present in companyrt.
F. Nariman, J. Leave granted.
The respondent had filed a suit in the Bombay High Court, being Suit No.1927 of 2007, against the appellant and some others seeking a declaration that a development agreement dated 27.12.2004 together with a Power of Attorney of even date had stood terminated, and for certain other reliefs.
By the impugned judgment dated 12.6.2015, the Bombay High Court appointed a retired Judge of the said High Court, namely Dr. Justice S. Radhakrishnan, as substitute arbitrator.
The Learned Arbitrator to make an award with regard to the companypensation and the damages to be paid by Defendant No.1 to the plaintiff for the deficient area, if any, Defendant No.1 shall number raise any dispute as to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator.
The said companysent terms were taken on record by a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court who passed an order dated 8.10.2008 disposing of the suit in the following terms Pursuant to the suggestion given by this Court, parties were exploring the possibility of settlement and therefore the matter was kept part heard.
On 3.10.2008, the parties to the suit entered into companysent terms largely settling the disputes between them.
