Back
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
Mcl Ksipl (JV) – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Oral)
1. Present petition has been preferred under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator.
2. Petitioner claims to be carrying its business of construction works in India. According to petitioner, respondent invited item rate tenders for the work of “Completion of balance works for construction of dwelling units including allied services for Officers JCOS/OR at Port Blair (Army)” and petitioner’s bid was accepted vide its letter dated 28/10/2014 for an amount of Rs. 438,29,06,684/ and time for completion of work was stipulated as 28 months.
3. Petitioner claims that the site for work was handed over to it by the respondent on 22.12.2014 and therefore, the work was to be concluded by 21.04.2017. However, due to various hindrances on the part of respondent, like non-availability of site, decisions and other hindrances and beaches of contract, petitioner could complete the work on 15.05.2018. Further claimed that the final bill was required to be submitted within three months so, petitioner submitted the same on 14.08.2018 and respondent was under obligation to clear it within six months i.e. on or before 13.02.2019.
Howev
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....
The court affirmed that when parties acknowledge disputes in a contractual agreement, an arbitrator must be appointed to resolve these disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court applied the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint a sole arbitrator and ensure compliance before commencing the arbitration.
Disputes concerning contract completion and payment arise, necessitating arbitration as per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Disputes under contracts with the Union of India are arbitrable, and the appointment of an independent arbitrator is necessary for their resolution under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Concilia....
The court upheld the validity of the arbitration agreement and recognized the petitioner’s adherence to the procedural requirements for arbitration, irrespective of the respondent's claims regarding ....
The court ruled that a Sole Arbitrator is to be appointed to resolve disputes under the contract due to the respondent's failure to meet contractual obligations.
Court under Section 11(6) appoints arbitrator upon undisputed invocation of arbitration clause in contract, permitting respondents to raise limitation and merits objections before tribunal.
The court has the authority to appoint a sole Arbitrator in accordance with the Arbitration Clause forming a part of the Contract.
The main legal point established is the court's authority to appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate disputes 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
