Disputes arose between the parties, and on 02.01.2015, the appellant terminated the sub contract.
The respondent, therefore, filed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 1996 Act on 10.02.2017 before the Bombay High Court.
As a result, on 20.07.2016, the respondent wrote to the appellant stating that as disputes and differences had arisen between the parties, numberice was given of appointment of Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar, Advocate, as sole arbitrator.
By the impugned judgment dated 09.03.2018, the Section 11 petition was allowed and Mr. Naniwadekar was appointed as sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon disputes and differences which have arisen between the appellant and the respondent in relation to the sub contract dated 14.06.2013.
The appellant replied on 17.08.2016, stating that the appointment of Mr. Naniwadekar as sole arbitrator was number acceptable as invocation of arbitration in pursuance of the agreement is premature.
F. NARIMAN, J. Leave granted.
This appeal arises out of a sub contract given by the appellant to the respondent in respect of work to be done for installation of a geo textile tubes embankment with toe mound at village Pentha in Odisha for protection against companystal erosion.
The disputes shall be referred to a sole arbitrator to be appointed by GWRL and COMACOE jointly in agreement.
