M. R. SHAH, KRISHNA MURARI
VGP Marine Kingdom Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Kay Ellen Arnold – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 05.08.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in O.P. No. 304/2019, by which, the High Court has dismissed the said application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1996) and has refused to appoint an arbitrator and refer the dispute to the arbitrator, original applicant has preferred the present appeal.
2. That the appellants herein approached the High Court under Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996 by way of O.P. No. 304/2019 to appoint an arbitrator so that the arbitral tribunal can be constituted in terms of clause 17.1.2 of the Share Subscription and Shareholders Agreement entered into between the appellants and the respondent at Chennai on 27.04.2016. By the impugned judgment and order the High Court has dismissed the said application and refused to appoint an arbitrator mainly on the grounds that at the time when the application under Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996 was filed in the year 2019, the matter was already referred to the arbitral tribunal with respect to agreement dated 27.04.2016, subseque
Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. vs. SBI Home Finance Ltd. (2011) 5 SCC 532 [Para 4]
Chloro Controls India Private Limited vs. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc. and Others
Appointment of Arbitrator - Issue with respect to arbitrability of dispute is to be decided by Arbitrator.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity and enforceability of the arbitration agreement, the arbitrability of the disputes, and the jurisdiction of the court to appoint an ar....
Pendency of proceedings before another tribunal does not preclude the Court from appointing an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act of 1996.
The existence of an arbitrable dispute, the validity of the arbitration agreement, and the existence of an arbitrable dispute are to be determined by the arbitral tribunal.
The referral court's scope under Section 11(6-A) is limited to the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement. A formal notice under Section 21 is not mandatory if the respondent has prior kno....
The interpretation of Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is that where the mandate of an arbitrator terminates, a substitute arbitrator shall be appointed according to the ru....
The court's examination under Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is limited to determining the existence of an arbitration agreement, with substantive issues reserved for the arbi....
The court confirmed that disputes between shareholders are arbitrable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing the limited scope of examination regarding the existence of an arbitratio....
The court confirmed that the existence of an arbitration agreement is undisputed, and any claims regarding time-bar should be determined by the arbitral tribunal.
The court clarified that post-2015 amendments, its role under Section 11 is limited to verifying the existence of an arbitration agreement, with other issues, including limitation, to be resolved by ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.