Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.
Smt. Maya Rani Singhal - Appellant
Versus
Shri. Hardeep Singh - Respondent
O.M.P. (T) (Comm.) 64/2021
Decided On : 27-07-2021
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Appointment of Sole Arbitrator - Dispute arising out of Collaboration Agreement - Appointment of Justice (Retd.) J.R. Midha as Sole Arbitrator
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought appointment of an Arbitrator under Sections 14 & 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 due to disputes arising from a Collaboration Agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The Court allowed the petition, appointed Justice (Retd.) J.R. Midha as Sole Arbitrator, and extended the time for making the award by nine months.
Issues: Appointment of Sole Arbitrator, Extension of time for making the award
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint the Sole Arbitrator and extend the time for making the award, ensuring compliance with the Act.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and Justice (Retd.) J.R. Midha was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute, with the time for making the award extended by nine months.
JUDGMENT
(Oral)
The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.
I.A. 8964/2021 (exemption)
1. Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application is disposed of.
I.A. 8965/2021 (exemption)
3. Allowed subject to all just exceptions and with direction to file requisite affidavits within four weeks of the Court resuming normal functioning.
4. Application is disposed of.
O.M.P. (T) (Comm.) 64/2021
5. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner under the provisions of Sections 14 & 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator under substitution.
6. Notice issued.
7. Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent.
8. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that to adjudicate the disputes and differences between the parties in relation to, connected with and arising out of the Collaboration Agreement dated 12.11.2011 executed between the parties in respect of property bearing municipal No. 65/30, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi- 110005, admeasuring 237 sq. yds., petitioners had preferred a petition under Section 11 (6) of the Act for appointment of an Arbitrator and vide Order dated 16.12.2015 [in ARB.P.616/2015, Maya Rani Singhal Vs. Hardeep Singh] this Court had appointed Justice (Retd.) Anil Kumar as Sole Arbitrator, however, after His demise, a new Arbitrator has to be appointed.
9. Learned counsel for respondents submits that in view of aforesaid submission of learned counsel for petitioners, there is no objection to appointment of Sole Arbitrator by this Court, however, all issues should be left open to be raised before the learned Arbitrator.
10. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that as per schedule, time for making the Award is expiring on 14.08.2021 and pray for a further extension of nine months.
11. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. Accordingly, Justice (Retd.) J.R. Midha (Mobile: 9910384619) is appointed Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
12. The fee of the learned Arbitrator shall be governed by the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
13. The learned Arbitrator shall ensure compliance of Section 12 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before commencing the arbitration.
14. Needless to say, all issues are left open for agitation by the parties and consideration by the learned Arbitrator.
15. The time for making the award is extended for a further period of nine months from 15.08.2021.
16. With aforesaid directions, the present petition is accordingly disposed of.
Court appointed a new Sole Arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act due to the previous Arbitrator's demise, allowing all parties to raise issues before the new Arbitrator.
The court appointed a new Sole Arbitrator following the death of the previous Arbitrator, emphasizing adherence to arbitration procedures per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The main legal point established is the court's authority to appoint a substituted Arbitrator under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 following the demise of the previous A....
A substituted arbitrator can be appointed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, following the demise of the previous arbitrator without objection from the parties involved.
Arbitration - Appointment of Arbitrator - An Agreement and under Clause-12 thereof parties shall resolve their dispute through arbitration and factum of appointment of Justice (Retd.) as Arbitrator.
The necessity to appoint a new Arbitrator is confirmed under Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, recognizing the continuation of the arbitration process post-demise of the ori....
Point of law : Arbitration Agreement – Death of Arbitrator – On death of arbitrator another arbitration appointed.
In the event of the demise of the sole Arbitrator, a new Arbitrator can be appointed to continue the arbitration proceedings in accordance with Sections 14 & 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Ac....
The court allows appointment of a substituted Arbitrator without restarting proceedings, ensuring continuity after the original Arbitrator's demise.
Delays in arbitration proceedings and failure to comply with the requirements of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can warrant the termination of an arbitrator's mandate.
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
