SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Del) 218

B.A.KHAN, ANIL KUMAR
SUSHIL KUMAR RAUT – Appellant
Versus
HOTEL MARINA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
S.K.MANIKTALA, Sohan Lal Pandhi

KHAN, J.

( 1 ) AN impasse has been created with two arbitrators conducting parallel arbitration proceedings. One is the appointing Authority under the arbitration clause and the other his appointee. The appointing Authority (R-3) has revoked the authority of the appointee ?" (R-3 ). Whether he could do so and who out of the two is the real arbitrator is the question.

( 2 ) THIS interesting question arises in the following facts. The appellant is a builder/contractor whereas respondent No. 1 is a partnership concern. Respondent no. 2 is the appointing authority under the arbitration agreement and respondent No. 3 is the arbitrator appointed by him.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 awarded a work contract for its hotel at Agra to be executed by respondent No. 1. The contract contained an arbitration clause which reads as under: ?o18. Settlement of Disputes any dispute between you and Owner s project Manager/resident Engineer regarding true interpretation of this work order/contract or about any other matter, payment etc. will be referred to Mr. R. A. Agrawal, Chief Engineer of the Company for his sole arbitration. He may act himself or may appoint any person to act as a Sole Arbitrator. Decisi








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top