M/S AK BANIK v. INCENZA SALES AND MANUFACTURING PRIVATE LIMITED
ARCO/60/2024 · 2025-04-17
Manoj Kumar Gupta
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 43258 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 43258 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:57617 Court No. - 21 Case :- ARBITRATION AND CONCILI. APPL.U/S11(4) No. - 60 of 2024 Applicant :- M/S Ak Banik Opposite Party :- Incenza Sales And Manufacturing Private Limited Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Somvanshi,Binod Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
1. The present application has been filed for appointment of an arbitrator in terms of Clause 35 of an agreement dated 29.05.2022 between the parties.
2. Vide order dated 14.02.2025, notice on the opposite party was held to be sufficient, however, none has appeared on behalf of the opposite party.
3. While going through the record, I find that there is an e-mail sent by opposite party to the applicant stating that the arbitration process is in progress, as per agreement in NOIDA. It further states that the applicant has failed to respond on a number of times to the information sent to it in this regard.
4. On query made by the court from counsel for the applicant in respect of the said e-mail and the status of arbitration proceedings, he feigns ignorance.
5. In absence of the same, the application is rejected with liberty to file fresh application, making full disclosures. (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 18.4.2025 Ankit. Digitally signed by :- ANKIT VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad