Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ASHOK S.KINAGI
J. C. Prakash Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Mysore Urban Development Authority Represented By Its Superintending Engineer – Respondent
ORDER :
ASHOK S.KINAGI, J.
The petitioner filed this civil miscellaneous petition under Section 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’ for short) to nominate any Former Judge of this Court as the Sole Arbitrator in terms of clause 24 of the Conditions of Contract read with clause 4 of the Special Conditions of Contract in the agreement dated 23.06.2022 vide Annexure-B to resolve the disputes/differences arising between the petitioner and the respondent.
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows:
2.1. The respondent issued a tender notification calling for construction of storm water drains in various locations of Mysuru City. The petitioner, being a Class I Contractor, participated in the auction proceedings. and he was the successful bidder. Accepting the same, the respondent issued a letter of acceptance on 07.05.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner and the respondent entered into an agreement dated 23.06.2022 to complete the work within a period of 6 months at a contract price of Rs. 27,78,41,436.31/- excluding applicable GST. The respondent issued a work order on 24.06.2022 and the project has to be completed within 6 months f
The presence of an arbitration clause in contracts mandates resolving disputes through arbitration, validating a petitioner's request for an arbitrator nomination when invoked properly.
The court has the authority to appoint a sole Arbitrator in accordance with the Arbitration Clause forming a part of the Contract.
The withdrawal of a previous petition with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action does not affect the maintainability of the subsequent petition.
The non-contestation of an Arbitration Agreement obligation permits the court to appoint a sole Arbitrator when both parties consent.
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the court's authority to appoint a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between parties under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court affirmed that contractual disputes necessitate arbitration per the agreement terms, allowing the appointment of arbitrators to resolve the issue.
No single party can be permitted to unilaterally appoint the Arbitrator, as it would defeat the purpose of unbiased adjudication of dispute between parties.
The inaction of a party in fulfilling contractual obligations can create a dispute justifying arbitration, despite contractual conditions.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to appoint an arbitrator to resolve disputed claims between parties in accordance with Section 11(6) of the Arbitration an....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
