abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Respondent No. 1, Foulk's Compound, Anaimedu, Salem 626 001. AND (i) Service Tax Appeal No. 164/2011 (CGST & CE, Salem) (Arising out of Order in Original No. 06/2010 (Commissioner) dated 13.12.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Salem) (ii) Service Tax Appeal No. 40524/2014 (CGST & CE, Salem) (Arising out of Order in Original No. 11/2013 dated 20.11.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Salem) (iii) Service Tax Appeal No.40525/2014 (CGST & CE, Salem) (Arising out of Order in Original No. 14/2013 dated 22.11.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Salem) 2 (iv) Service Tax Appeal No.42545/2014 (CGST & CE, Salem) (Arising out of Order in Original No. 11/2014 dated 20.6.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Salem) Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Appellant No. 1, Foulk's Compound, Anaimedu, Salem 626 001. Vs. M/s. RPP Infra Projects Ltd. Respondent (formerly RPP Constructions Pvt. Ltd.) S.F. No. 454, Raghupathynaiken Palayam Poondurai Road, Railway Colony, Erode, Salem 600 032. APPEARANCE: Shri S. Muthuvenkataraman, Advocate for the AppellantAssessee Shri P.R.V. Ramanan, Special Counsel & Shri M. Ambe, DC (AR) for the Respondent CORAM Hon'ble Shri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Shri M. Ajit Kumar, Member (Technical) Final Order Nos. 4056440575/2024 Date of Hearing : 05.03.2024 Date of Decision: 30.05.2024 Per M. Ajit Kumar, These appeals filed by the Rival Parties involve common issues and hence they were heard together and are disposed by this common order. M/s. RPP Infra Projects Ltd., (RPP) are providers of taxable service and are registered with the Department for providing service under the categories of: (i) Commercial or Industrial Construction Service (CICS) (ii) Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service (ECIS) (iii) Interior Decorator Service, and (iv) Construction of Residential Complex Service There are 8 appeals filed by the assessee i.e. M/s RPP and 4 departmental appeals being disposed off through this common order. The demands have been raised under 9 categories of services against which both RPP and the department are in appeal before this Tribunal. Since a large number of individual projects are involved in all the appeals put together, its proposed to group the projects service wise for ease of discussion and decision on the legal issues involved. 3 2. The index of issues discussed is given in the
Accused : Sri.K Mohan, s/o. Krishnappa, Age about 44 years, Proprietor of Royal Brigade Paints, 2 C.C. 2763 / 2019 No.40, Teju Layout, K H P Colony, Kunigal 572 130 { By Sri. Ravikumar B R Advocate } Offence complained : U/S. 138 of N.I. Act., Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty Final Order : Accused is convicted Date of Order : 05032024. JUDGMENT The present complaint is filed under section 200 of code of criminal procedure against the accused seeking to punish him for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ( in short referred as "N.I. Act"). 02. The thumbnail of the averments of the complaint are as under; 3 C.C. 2763 / 2019 It is pleaded that, the complainant supplied chemical and other materials on credit basis to the accused and as per the supply order placed by the accused on different dated the complainant supplied chemical and materials to the accused through invoices and the accused is total outstanding balance payable towards purchase of said chemical and materials is Rs.13,79,647/. In order to pay the said purchase material amount, the accused has issued following cheques. SL.NO. CHEQUE NO CHEQUE DATE AMOUNT (RS) 1 701744 22.11.2018 12,35,687/ 2 064570 13.11.2018 50,000/ 3 064571 09.11.2018 43,960/ 4 064569 16.11.2018 50,000/ The cheque at Sl.No. is drawn on Indian Oversea Bank, Bengaluru and cheques at Sl.No.2 to 4 were drawn on Corporation Bank, Kunigal Branch, Tumkur. On the request of the accused, the complainant has presented cheque No. 701744 with his banker on 22.11.2018 and same was returned unpaidon 23.11.2018 due to "Funds Insufficient" and the other cheques have returned unpaid 4 C.C. 2763 / 2019 due to "Account Blocked " as per memo dated 23.11.2018. Thereafter on 11.12.2018 the complainant got issued demand notice to the accused by RPAD but the same was returned on 19.12.2018 as "not claimed". Accordingly, It is sought to convict the accused under section 138 of NI Act and to award compensation to him as per Section 357 of Cr.P.C. 03. On presentation of the complaint this court verified all complaint averments and the material documents and after having made out prime facie case the cognizance for the offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act has been taken. As per the verdicts of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Indian Bank Association and others V/s Union of India and others, the sworn statement of the complainant has been recorded along with marking material documents at Ex.P1 to P16 and the process has been issued against the accused. 5 C.C. 2763 / 2019 04. In response to the summons, the accused put his appearance before the court through his counsel and filed bail application and also application under section 145(2) of NI Act. The accused has been enlarged on bail. The subst
The Deputy Director of Income Tax, (International Taxation) I, Pune, Third Floor, B.O. Bhavan, Sector 17, Plot No. 1, Pune Satara Road, Pune 411009 ......प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / ITA Nos. 444 to 446, 1572 & 1573/PUN/2014 ननधाारण र्वर्ा / Assessment Years : 200809 to 201213 The Deputy Director of Income Tax, (International Taxation) I, Pune .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम/Vs. Agfa Healthcare India Private Limited, Technosoft Knowledge Gateway, 2nd Floor, B14, Road No. 1, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W) 400604 PAN : AAGCA3797D ......प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Girish Dave Revenue by : Shri S.B. Morey सन ु वाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 13042017 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 31052017 2 ITA Nos. 216 to 218, 1361, 1362, 444 to 446, 1572 & 1573/PUN/2014 आदे श / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : These cross appeals for the five assessment years i.e. assessment years 200809 to 201213 have been filed by the assessee and the Department. The assessee in ITA Nos. 216, 217 & 218/PUN/2014 for the assessment years 200809, 200910 and 201011, respectively has assailed the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)IT/TP, Pune dated 31122013 common for the assessment years 200809, 200910 and 201011. The Department has filed cross appeals against the same order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in ITA Nos. 444, 445 & 446/PUN/2014. The assessee in ITA Nos. 1361 & 1362/PUN/2014 for the assessment years 201112 and 201213 has assailed the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)IT/TP, Pune dated 22052014 common for assessment years 201112 and 201213. The Department has filed cross appeals against the same order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in ITA Nos. 1572 & 1573/PUN/2014. Since, the issue raised in all the respective appeals by the assessee and Department are common, therefore, these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and are decided vide this common order. 2. The facts of the case as emanating from records are: The assessee company is engaged in the business of providing IT enabled diagnostic image management solutions, healthcare imaging equipment and consumables like X ray films including Digital Radiography, Computed Radiography, etc. The imaging equipment supplied by the assessee requires specific software to activate/run the equipment. The softwares 3 ITA Nos. 216 to 218, 1361, 1362, 444 to 446, 1572 & 1573/PUN/2014 that run the equipments are preinstalled on the machines. The Assessing Officer in proceedings initiated u/s. 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") held that during the financial years under consideration the assessee has paid amounts to nonresidents (vendors) situated at Australia, Canada and Belgium for acquiring right to use computer software, without deduction of tax at source. The consideration received by the non resident partake the character of „Royalty‟ within the meaning of section 9(i)(vi) of the Act, as well as under Article 12 of the Double Tax Avoidance Agreements (DTAA) between India and Australia / Canada / Belgium. The Assessing Officer vide orders passed u/s. 201(1) a
1 of 15 dtd.25.5.2010/k 2 Weaving Mills Ltd. c. Concerned Clerk from Registrar of Companies, with records pertaining to Birla Textiles Mills; M/s. Texmaco Ltd.; M/s. M/s. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. d. Concerned Clerk from Labour Department alongwith some advertisements published in newspaper in 1997 regarding payment of dues of Birla Textiles Mills; e. Concerned Clerk from ESIC regarding records pertaining to the accused;M/s. Birla Textiles Mills; M/s. Texmaco Ltd.; M/s. M/s. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd.; and f. Concerned Patwari regarding records of Old Birla Lines and Birla Mills. 3. It is not mentioned in the application as to what point the accused wants to prove from these witnesses. This application is vehemently opposed by the complainant. 4. Briefly stated the facts of this case are that the complainant company filed the present complaint u/s.630 of the Companies Act against the accused claiming that the accused was an employee of M/s. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. and by virtue of a scheme of arrangement, the complainant company acquired one Birla Mill Unit of the said company alongwith all its employees and properties. The accused was provided with a residential accommodation as a licensee, by virtue of his employment, which he was to vacate upon cessation of his services, but despite cessation of services, the accused failed to vacate the property and was wrongfully withholding the same. Order in Texmaco Vs. Sri Niwas/Case no.1378/3 Page no. 2 of 15 dtd.25.5.2010/k 3 5. The complainant, M/s. Texmaco Ltd. filed the present complaint u/s. 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, against the accused, alleging that the complainant company is duly incorporated under the said Act and, the complainant company is the proprietor of Birla Textile Mill, located at Post Office Birla Lines, Kamla Nagar, Delhi. It claims that the complainant company has various employees and housing colonies such as Old Birla Lines, New Birla Lines, Roshanara Building (Shivaji Lines), Birla Lines Officer's Flats and Birla Flats, and Khilona Wala Bagh etc. It claims that these housing colonies are located near the vicinity of the mill and they were allotted to employees for the greater convenience of the employees due to exigencies attached with their job an
Bombay High Court Mohinder Rijhawani And 2 Ors vs Hiranandani Constructions Pvt. Ltd. ... on 9 September, 2019 Mohinder Rijhwani & Ors v Hiranandani Constructions & Ors & Veena Hinduja v Hiranandani Constructions & Ors appl 14219+J(1).doc Atul ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL (L) NO. 142 OF 2019 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 595 OF 2017 IN SUIT NO. 229 OF 2017 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 322 OF 2019 1. Mohinder Rijhwani, 2. Prakash H Rijhwani 3. Prem H Rijhwani All Adults Indian Inhabitants residing at A30/3, Maitri Park CHS Ltd, Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071 ... Appellants ~ versus ~ 1. Hiranandani Construction Pvt Ltd A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its address at "Olympia" Central Avenue, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai 400 076. Represented through its authorized signatory R Giridharadas 2. Veena H Hinduja & Haresh R Hinduja, Page 1 of 32 9th September 2019 ::: Uploaded on 11/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on 11/09/2019 20:25:42 ::: Mohinder Rijhwani & Ors v Hiranandani Constructions & Ors & Veena Hinduja v Hiranandani Constructions & Ors appl 14219+J(1).doc Both adults Indian Inhabitant residing at B38/1, Maitri Park CHS Ltd, Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071 3. M/s. Maitri Park Co operative Housing Society, A housing society registered under Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 having ofce at Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071. ... Respondents A PPEARANCES IN APPL /142/2019 WITH NMCAL /322/19 FOR THE APPELLANTS/ Mr Arun Panickar, i/b Law Square. APPLICANTS FOR RESPONDENT NO. 1 Ms Deepa Pohuja, with Ms Sheetal Raghavi, i/b M/s. J. Law Associates. FOR RESPONDENT NO. 5 Ms Sushma Singh, with Priyanka Raul. WITH APPEAL (L) NO. 143 OF 2019 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 595 OF 2017 IN SUIT NO. 229 OF 2017 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 324 OF 2019 Page 2 of 32 9th September 2019 ::: Uploaded on 11/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on 11/09/2019 20:25:42 ::: Mohinder Rijhwani & Ors v Hiranandani Constructions & Ors & Veena Hinduja v Hiranandani Constructions & Ors appl 14219+J(1).doc 1. Veena h Hinduja, 2. Haresh R Hinduja both adults Indian Inhabitants residing at B38/1, Maitri park CHS Ltd, Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071 ... Appellants ~ versus ~ 1. Hiranandani Constructions Pvt Ltd A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 havint its address at "Olympia" Central Avenue, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai 400 076. Represented through its authorized signatory R Giridharadas 2. Ramesh H Gurbaxani & Laxman H Gurvaxani, Both adults Indian Inhabitant residing at A/35/2, Maitri Park CHS Ltd, Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071 3. Ambat Ravindranath, An Indian Inhabitant having his address at A/36/1, Maitri Park CHS Ltd, Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071 4. Mohinder Rijhwani, Prakash H Rijhwani & Prem H Rijhwani, All adults Indian Inhabitants residing at A/30/3, Maitri Park CHS Ltd, Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071 Page 3 of 32
Bombay High Court Inhabitant vs Kokan Mercantile Cooperative Bank Ltd. on 5 February, 2013 kvm 1/34 ARBP363.11 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 363 OF 2011 Nazim H. Kazi, of Bombay Indian ) Inhabitant, Residing at 1202, Fortune ) Tower, 12th Floor, 337, Sir J.J.Road, ) Byculla, Mumbai 400 003 ) ..... Petitioner VERSUS Kokan Mercantile Cooperative Bank Ltd.) a Cooperative Bank, having its Head ) office at Harbour Crest, Mazgaon T.T., ) Mumbai 400 010 ) ..... Respondent Ms.Anita Castelino, a/w. Mr.Mujahid Mulla, i/b. Mr.S.M.Kazi for the Petitioner. Mr.Nikhil Sarkhadande, a/w. Mr.S.R.Waghmare, i/b. Mr.Y.R.Naik for the Respondent. CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J. RESERVED ON : 21st JANUARY, 2013 PRONOUNCED ON : 5th FEBRUARY, 2013 JUDGMENT : By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short `Arbitration Act, 1996'), the petitioner seeks to challenge an award dated 15th February, 2011 made by the Arbitral Tribunal dismissing the dispute filed by the petitioner under section 84 of the Multi State Co operative Societies Act, 2002. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of ::: Downloaded on 09/06/2013 19:38:00 ::: kvm 2/34 ARBP363.11 deciding this petition are as under : 2. Since 1986, petitioner was member of the respondent bank. For the period between 25th November, 2000 and March 2008, the petitioner was elected as the Chairman of respondent. In February 2008, once again the petitioner was elected as the director by mandate of the members of the respondent. 3. In the meeting of the respondent bank, on a querry raised by one of the members, it was decided to appoint M/s.Choksi and Choksi, Chartered Accountants to conduct an enquiry into the alleged irregularities of some accounts. Pursuant to the said resolution, M/s. Choksi and Choksi, Chartered Accountants submitted a report on 28th March, 2009. The petitioner was not heard or was called for any discussion when such enquiry was conducted by the said Chartered Accountants. 4. In the meeting of the Board of Directors of the respondent held on 2nd April, 2009, the said report dated 28th March, 2009 was tabled. It is the case of the petitioner that by letter dated 26th May, 2009, the respondent had requested the said Chartered Accountants to carry out the enquiry in the matter of transfer entries allowed in the accounts mentioned therein. However, no such enquiry was made out by the said Chartered Accountants in the said report on that ::: Downloaded on 09/06/2013 19:38:00 ::: kvm 3/34 ARBP363.11 issue. In the said report submitted by Chartered Accountants, it was opined that there were irregularities observed in the assessment/sanction of the credit facilities and credit supervision and monitoring of the various credit facilities of the specified parties which included non compliances, sanctions without following the relevant procedures, non reporting thereof and overall insufficient control. It was opined that the same was indicative failure of the
1. Chaitanya Arora, ) Individual, Indian Inhabitant ) Having address at H19/81, Top Floor, ) Rohini Sector7, North West Delhi, ) Delhi110085. ) 2. Chaitanya Enterprises ) Having address at H19/81, Top Floor, ) Rohini Sector7, North West Delhi, ) Delhi110085. ) 3. Sonu Shah ) Being the sole proprietor of ) Meera Jadhav ::: Uploaded on 17/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on 18/10/2025 00:27:07 ::: 2/53 iaL1827825.doc Sonu Enterprises, ) Ground Floor, Kh. No.957, ) Village Kirari Suleman Nagar, ) Landmark Near Chopal, ) New Delhi India 110086 ) WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.5889 OF 2025 Mr. Janak Dwarkadas a/w Namrata Vinod, Rashmin Khandekar, Pooja Jain, Bhavi Gada. Samaruddhi Naik, Suhail Shariff, Sherin Baby and Mohammad Omar Hashmi for Plaintiff. Mr.Hiren Kamod a/w Vaibhav Keni, Neha Iyer, Prem Khullar, Vatsala Batra, Gaurav Gogia, Anees Patel, Aviral Srivastava, Rajat A. i/b Legasis Partners for Defendant. Mr. Deepak Bhalerao, Second Assistant to Court Receiver, present. CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J. RESERVED ON: 30TH SEPTEMBER 2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 15TH OCTOBER 2025 JUDGMENT: 1. This Court had, on 30th June, 2025, passed an ex parte ad interim Order inter alia restraining the Defendants from using the trade mark "DOCTOR HEALTH SUPER SOFT/ DOCTOR SUPER SOFT/ DOCTOR EXTRA SOFT" in relation to the sale of footwear. 2. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, on being served with the ex parte order have filed an Affidavit seeking to have the ex parte ad interim Order vacated under the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Meera Jadhav ::: Uploaded on 17/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on 18/10/2025 00:27:07 ::: 3/53 iaL1827825.doc (CPC), on the ground that the Plaintiff has approached this Court with unclean hands since the Plaintiff had obtained the ex parte order by deliberately suppressing material facts and documents from this Court. Submissions of Mr. Kamod on behalf of the Defendants 3. Mr. Kamod, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Defendants submitted that the Plaintiff had suppressed the three most material facts from this Court and had on that basis not only created a false sense of urgency but also obtained relief to which the Plaintiff was not entitled. He then pointed out that the Plaintiff had suppressed the fact that (I) the Plaintiff's trade mark registration
GR Green Life Energy Pvt. Ltd. SR No.81, Flat No.09, Indira Memories Near Sakal Nagar, Aundh, Pune 411007. ... Respondent Prayer : Original Petition is filed under Section 11(6)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to appoint an Arbitrator in terms of Clause 22 of the Development Agreement dated 10.02.2014 to adjudicate upon the differences and disputes between the parties under the Development Agreement dated 10.02.2014. For Petitioner : Mr.Vishnu Mohan For Respondent : Mr.Aditya Reddy Page 1/12 http://www.judis.nic.in O.P.No.300 of 2019 ORDER This application has been filed for appointment of arbitrator in terms of Clause 22 of the Development Agreement dated 10.02.2014 to adjudicate upon the differences and disputes between the parties under the Development Agreement dated 10.02.2014. 2. By agreement dated 10.02.2014, the petitioner herein entered an agreement with the respondent for setting up a wind farm project, wherein, the respondent agreed to purchase the land parcels, provide some services and ultimately handover the wind manufacturing project to the petitioner herein. 3. The Clause 20 of the agreement reads as follows : “20. Governing Law and Jurisdiction and Service of Process : ...... (c) All disputes, difference and claims or any nonpayment concerning the project work hereby created and/or touching this presents, arising out of or in relation to anything contained herein shall be referred to arbitration to be held at Chennai, under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in force time to time). The arbitration panel shall consist of three arbitrators, one arbitrator shall be appointed by each party and the arbitrators so appointed shall appoint the presiding arbitrator. The parties hereto shall duly observe and person any interim award/s or direction/s of the arbitration tribunal and the award in pursuance to arbitration shall be final and binding on the parties hereto. The arbitration Page 2/12 http://www.judis.nic.in O.P.No.300 of 2019 proceedings shall be conducted in English language.” 4. It is the contention of the petitioner that they released a sum of Rs.6.475 Crores on an account basis as envisaged by the agreement. However, no proper services were forthcoming from the respondent as per the terms of the agreement. Requisite land parcels were also not provided within the time as agreed in the agreement. When the matter stood thus, the respondent issued a legal notice on 21.04.2018 making an u
Delhi High Court Gangotri Enterprises Ltd vs General Manager Northern Railaways on 31 October, 2022 Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/004520 $~ * Reserved on : 14.10.2022 Decided on: 31.10.2022 + ARB.P. 366/2020 GANGOTRI ENTERPRISES LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sarthak Chiller and Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan, Advocates (Ph.9811212045, email: [email protected]) versus GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILAWAYS ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC with Ms. Vrinda Baheti, Advocates (Ph.9968324260, email: [email protected]). + ARB.P. 367/2020 GANGOTRI ENTERPRISES LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sarthak Chiller and Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan, Advocates (Ph.9811212045, email: [email protected]) versus GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAYS ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC with Ms. Vrinda Baheti, Advocates (Ph.9968324260, email: [email protected]). + ARB.P. 368/2020 GANGOTRI ENTERPRISES LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sarthak Chiller and Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan, Advocates (Ph.9811212045, email: [email protected]) versus Signature Not Verified ARB.P. Nos. 366/2020, Page 1 of 36 Digitally Signed By:PURAN 367/2020, 368/2020, 370/2020 SINGH TARIYAL Signing Date:31.10.2022 16:49:34 Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/004520 GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAYS ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sushil Raaja, SPC, UOI for GM Northern Railways. + ARB.P. 370/2020 GANGOTRI ENTERPRISES LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sarthak Chiller and Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan, Advocates (Ph.9811212045, email: [email protected]) versus GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAYS ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sushil Raaja, SPC, UOI for GM Northern Railways. HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA JUDGMENT % 31.10.2022 MINI PUSHKARNA, J. 1. The aforesaid petitions have been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as 'Act') with prayer for appointment of nominee arbitrator for the respondent, who along with the nominee of the petitioner appointed vide notice