IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
M/s. Kay Vee Enterprises Engineers and Builders - Appellant
Versus
The Director & Secretary, Shri. Guru Gobind Singhji – Respondent
Arbitration Application No.10 of 2022
Decided on : 21-12-2022
Arbitration - Appointment of Arbitrator - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 11(6)
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed for the appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for disputes arising from a contract. The respondent opposed the petition, claiming the applicant's claim was time-barred.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's demand letter brought the claim within limitation, creating doubt about the subsistence of the disputes. The court appointed a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes, leaving all objections on merits and procedural aspects to be determined by the Arbitrator.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appointment of an Arbitrator could be made when the claim was allegedly time-barred.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that if there is even the slightest doubt about the subsistence of the disputes, the rule is to refer the disputes to arbitration. The court also emphasized that objections regarding claims should be left to be determined by the Arbitrator.
Final Decision: The court appointed a sole Arbitrator to decide the disputes, leaving all objections on merits and procedural aspects to be determined by the Arbitrator.
JUDGMENT :
1. This application filed under the provisions of sub-Section 6 of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act of 1996’) for appointment of an Arbitrator.
2. The relevant clause of the agreement between the parties reads thus:
Provided always that the Owner shall not withhold the payment of an Interim Certificate nor the Contractor except with the consent in writing of the Architect in any way delay the carrying out of the works by reason of any such matters, question or dispute being referred to Arbitration but shall proceed with the work with all due diligence
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Another Vs. Nortel Networks India Private Limited
Inbasagaran and Another Vs. S. Natarajan (Dead) Through Legal Representative
The appointment of an Arbitrator should proceed if there is doubt about the subsistence of the disputes, and objections regarding claims should be left to be determined by the Arbitrator.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the limitation for filing an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act arises upon the failure to make the appointment of the arbitr....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the limitation period for filing an application seeking appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation A....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Limitation Act, 1963 to arbitration proceedings and the significance of acknowledging claims to extend the period of limitat....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an application filed under Section 11(6)(C) of the Act, 1996 is barred by limitation if filed after a delay of more than the period of three y....
Arbitration requests must be filed within three years of the cause of action; failure to act in time bars subsequent petitions.
An application under Section 11 for appointment of an arbitrator is time-barred if filed after three years from the refusal to appoint, with delays not justified.
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.