Arbitration petition maintainable despite party misdescription where records identify the contracting entity and disputes go to arbitration.

An arbitration petition under Section 11(6) was held maintainable despite apparent confusion in the description of the contracting parties, because the letters of intent and correspondence showed that the entities referred to were in substance the same applicant for the sub-contracts. The Court treated the misdescription as non-fatal and held that objections based on alleged non-fulfilment of contractual obligations were matters for the arbitrator, not a bar to appointment. The petition was therefore allowed and an arbitrator appointed. The decision applies the principle that a mere party misdescription does not defeat referral where the record clearly establishes the contracting entity and the dispute otherwise falls within the arbitral domain.

---

---

Issues: Whether the arbitration petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was maintainable despite confusion in the description of the contracting parties and the applicant's identity.

Analysis: The materials showed that the letters of intent and subsequent correspondence were exchanged with the applicant, and the record made it clear that the entities referred to in different forms were one and the same for the purpose of the sub-contracts. The Court treated the apparent misdescription as non-fatal, noting that the objection as to non-fulfilment of contractual obligations remained for the arbitrator and did not affect the request for appointment under Section 11(6). The reference to Section 57A of the Australian Corporation Act, 2001 supported the conclusion that the corporate description used did not create a real ambiguity defeating the petition.

Conclusion: The petition was maintainable and the request for appointment of an arbitrator was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: An arbitration petition under Section 11(6) cannot be defeated by a mere misdescription of a party where the record establishes the identity of the contracting entity and the disputes otherwise fall within the arbitral domain.

---