24 of 2012 whereby and whereunder, while dealing with an application preferred under Section 11 5 and 6 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for brevity the Act , has repelled the submission of the appellant herein, the respondent in the original proceedings, that the disputes raised by the applicant, being excepted matters, were squarely companyered within the ambit of clause 9.3 of the agreement and hence, it was only to be referred to an expert for resolution and number to an arbitrator and, further addressing the issue on merits, opined that as the disputes are number companyered under the subject matter of billing disputes that find place in clause 9.3 of the agreement, the parties are number under obligation to refer the matter to the expert, and, accordingly, called for the names from both the parties and taking numbere of the inability expressed by the companynsel for the respondents therein, appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes that have arisen between the parties.
The present appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.7.2013 passed by the learned Judge, the designate of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, in Arbitration Application No.
2 owns 51 equity of the appellant No.
The respondent owns 49 equity of the appellant No.
1 companypany.
The appellant company had entered into two agreements with the respondent for supply of power to the respondent.
As put forth by the appellant, the respondent did number accede to resolve the dispute by way of appointing an expert instead, it moved the High Court for appointment of an arbitrator.
1 companypany and the appellant No.
