M/S ANIL AND COMPANY vs PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES AND EXPORT CORPORATION LTD — ARB/162/2026

Case under Arbitration and Conciliation Act Section 11. Disposed: --ALLOWED on 15th May 2026.

CNR: PHHC010565742026

CASE DISPOSED

Next Hearing

08th April 2026

e-Filing Number

01-04-2026

Filing Number

ARB/19968/2026

Filing Date

02-04-2026

Registration No

ARB/162/2026

Registration Date

06-04-2026

Judge

MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI

Coram

MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI

Bench Type

Single

Category

69.4 - ARBITRATION U/S 11 (LESS THAN 5 CRORE) ( 938 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

CIVIL REVISION BRANCH-I

Decision Date

15th May 2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Acts & Sections

Arbitration and Conciliation Act Section 11

Petitioner(s)

M/S ANIL AND COMPANY

Adv. PRABHINDER SINGH PUNIA

Respondent(s)

PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES AND EXPORT CORPORATION LTD

Orders

15-05-2026
MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI

The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed M/S Anil and Company's petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, appointing Dr. Sukant Gupta, Advocate, as the independent Sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute. The petitioner sought court appointment after invoking the arbitration clause (Clause 25) in their contract with Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Ltd., arguing that the respondent's nominated arbitrator was unilateral; the respondent subsequently consented to an independent arbitrator's appointment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed M/S Anil and Company's petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, appointing Dr. Sukant Gupta, Advocate, as the independent Sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute. The petitioner sought court appointment after invoking the arbitration clause (Clause 25) in their contract with Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Ltd., arguing that the respondent's nominated arbitrator was unilateral; the respondent subsequently consented to an independent arbitrator's appointment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Explore other courts

Search Another Case