An apple supplier’s accounts-and-injunction suit had been referred to arbitration, with the trial court appointing the Fruit Association at Sopore as arbitrator and requiring an undertaking.
Judge / Bench — Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajnesh Oswal, Judge
On supervisory challenge, the High Court accepted the objection to those additional directions, which respondents’ counsel conceded should not have been issued. It deleted the appointment and undertaking requirements, leaving the parties to proceed under their agreement and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The supplier’s fresh contention that no arbitration agreement existed had not been raised below; the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court expressly left it open before the arbitrator. The connected contempt proceeding was dropped. The order preserves the distinction between referral to arbitration and the particular appointment directions successfully challenged here.
Case — Mohammad Ashraf Lone v. Parvaiz Ahmad Yatoo and Ors. · CM(M) 182/2022 c/w CCP(S) 378/2024 · 2026-10-14 · Srinagar wing
Advocates appearing — Petitioner — Mr. Sami Lone, Advocate, vice Mr. Syed Sajad Geelani, Advocate. Respondents — Mr. Waseem Shamas, Advocate.