Back
SANDEEP V. MARNE
Kay Vee Enterprises Engineers and Builders – Appellant
Versus
Director & Secretary, Shri. Guru Gobind Singhji – Respondent
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:
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.
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
