SURESH KUMAR KAIT
Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
IHQ Of Ministry Of Defence (army) – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Oral)
The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.
1. The present petition has been filed by petitioner seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator under the provisions of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for adjudication of disputes with the respondent.
2. Petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, who is engaged in the business of manufacturing of mustard oil. Respondent is a Government organization under the Ministry of Defence, who invited bids for supply of 20500 metric tonne (MT) edible oil vide proposal No. 62801/Q/1/RPF/Edible oil/2020- 21/ APO/PUR-IV, dated 04/02/2020.
The petitioner claims to have participated in the bid and submitted the requisite documents and EMD of Rs. 1,15,13,786/. The bid of petitioner was accepted by the respondent vide its acceptance of tender letter dated 22.05.2020, reference No. 62801/20-21/RMO/APO/AT-5 to AT-13 as per the request for proposal dated 04/02/2020.
3. According to petitioner, due to Covid pandemic, lock down/curfew was imposed all over India from 25.03.2020 and due to lack of manpower and inability to procure oil seeds, the production in petitioner’s factory stopped
The main legal point established in the judgment is the exclusivity of the right to appoint a sole arbitrator when one party has such a right, as per the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
A party with the exclusive right to appoint a sole arbitrator cannot have the other party recommend arbitrators, ensuring impartiality in dispute resolution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of an Arbitrator must comply with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the choice of the Arbitrator must not ha....
The court's decision to appoint a new sole Arbitrator underlines the importance of continued arbitration proceedings and addressing counterclaims in compliance with statutory provisions.
: In cases where one party has a right to appoint a sole arbitrator, its choice will always have an element of exclusivity in determining or charting the course for dispute resolution.
Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator by a party with a vested interest is improper and contradicts established legal principles regarding impartiality in arbitration.
The necessity for mutual agreement in appointing a sole arbitrator is critical to uphold fairness in arbitration processes, emphasizing the exclusivity of choice and impartiality in dispute resolutio....
The unilateral appointment of an arbitrator violates the principle of unbiased adjudication, requiring mutual agreement between parties for such appointments.
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the court's authority to appoint a Sole Arbitrator and refer disputes arising from a tender to Arbitration in accordance with the provisions of....
Arbitration - Appointment of Arbitrator - In cases where one party has a right to appoint a sole arbitrator, its choice will always has an element of exclusivity in determining or charting course for....
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.