Arihant Dream Infra Projects Limited v. For Applicant(S) : Mr. Nitish Kumar Bagri For Non-Applicant(S): Mr. Ankit Juneja With Mr. Nitesh Shrivastava
High Court
06 Jul 2022 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · jaipur
Parties
Arihant Dream Infra Projects Limited v. For Applicant(S) : Mr. Nitish Kumar Bagri For Non-Applicant(S): Mr. Ankit Juneja With Mr. Nitesh Shrivastava
Date of order
06 Jul 2022
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Arihant Dream Infra Projects Limited v. For Applicant(S) : Mr. Nitish Kumar Bagri For Non-Applicant(S): Mr. Ankit Juneja With Mr. Nitesh Shrivastava, the High Court (2022) allowed the appeal under Section 11, Section 12 of the Income-tax Act. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
S.B. Arbitration Application No. 92/2020
Arihant Dream Infra Projects Limited Through Its Director Mr.Rishabh Goel, Havingh Its Office At Second Floor, Class Of Pearl,Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur- Rajasthan.
----Applicant
Versus
Shri Krishnam Star Hotels And Real Estate Private Limited, ShriKrishnam Star Hotels And Real Estate Private Limited ThroughIts Director - Mr. Sunil Singodiya Having Its Office At House No.2, Barwara House Colony, Civil Lines, Ajmer Road, Jaipur-302001
----Non-Applicant
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Nitish Kumar Bagri For Non-Applicant(s): Mr. Ankit Juneja with Mr. Nitesh Shrivastava
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Order
06/07/2022
1.Applicant has filed this Arbitration Application under Section11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointmentof an arbitrator.
2.It is contended by counsel for the applicant that there is anarbitration clause in the developer’s agreement. However, in thearbitration clause, name of the arbitrator was mentioned whocannot act as an arbitrator. A prayer is made that an independentsole arbitrator be appointed to resolve the dispute between theparties.
3.Reply has been filed on behalf of the non-applicant. In reply,non-applicant has also agreed for appointment of an arbitrator.
4.I have considered the contentions.
5.Since, there is an arbitration clause and the non-applicanthas also not objected to the appointment of an arbitrator, thisCourt deems it proper to allow the present Arbitration Application.
6.Accordingly, the Arbitration Application is allowed.
7.This Court appoints Hon’ble Mr. Justice Akil Kureshi (Retd.
Chief Justice) as a sole arbitrator to decide this ArbitrationApplication.
8.The appointment of the sole arbitrator is subject to thedeclarations being made under Section 12 of the Arbitration &Conciliation Act, 1996 with respect to independence andimpartiality, and the ability to devote sufficient time to completethe arbitration within the prescribed period.
9.The Arbitrator shall be entitled to lay down fees as providedunder Manual of Procedure for Alternative Disputes Resolution,2009 as amended from time to time.
10.Registry is directed to intimate Hon’ble Mr. Justice AkilKureshi(Retd. Chief Justice) and obtain his formal consent.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J
AMIT KUMAR /10
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.