Back
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
RG Icon, Plumbing And Firefighting Contractors – Appellant
Versus
BPTP Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - The present petition has been filed under Sections 11 (5) & 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes with respondent.
2. As per the averments made by petitioner, petitioner is a partnership firm dealing in Firefighting and Plumbing contracts. Petitioner was awarded work contract by the respondent for plumbing sanitary fixtures and fitting for the project known as Park Elite Premium, Sector-84, Faridabad, Haryana vide Work Order No.BPTP /Parkland /PEP/S84/17/WO-69 dt 23.05.2017 for contract value of Rs.1,84,54,537/-. The work order was amended number of times as to contract value and lastly by the letter of the respondent dated 20.08.2020 and its value was reduced from Rs.1,84,54,537/- finally to Rs.1,22,71,221/-. The work under the original Work Order was to be completed within a period of nine months. Petitioner with an intention to timely complete the work gathered its equipments and personnel etc. Respondent, however, on various counts delayed execution of work as a result of which, the staff, labour & equipments of petitioner were kept idle. Thereafter, disputes arose be
The court's decision emphasizes the validity of invoking arbitration in accordance with the arbitration clause of the work order and the importance of compliance with Section 12 of the Arbitration an....
The court has the authority to appoint a sole Arbitrator when disputes arise under an arbitration clause and the responding party does not object to the appointment.
The court's decision emphasized the appointment of a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court upheld the arbitrability of disputes arising from contractual obligations, appointing a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
The court upheld the petition for arbitration despite limitation concerns, emphasizing that disputes surrounding contract payments necessitate resolution by the appointed arbitrator.
Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is impermissible; parties must appoint an arbitrator jointly or seek court appointment to ensure unbiased dispute resolution.
The court directed the appointment of a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to resolve contract disputes, affirming the arbitrability of the issues.
Appointment of a sole arbitrator must comply with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and should not be in violation of relevant legal precedents.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to appoint an independent arbitrator for adjudication of disputes based on the arbitration agreement.
No single party can be permitted to unilaterally appoint the Arbitrator, as it would defeat the purpose of unbiased adjudication of dispute between parties.
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
