Back
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
Hashnine SystePrivate Limited – Appellant
Versus
Eastern Air Command Head Quarters), Indian Air Force – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - The present petition has been preferred seeking appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for adjudication of disputes which have arisen between the parties.
2. The case of the petitioner in nutshell is that respondent has arbitrarily invoked the Bank Guarantee No. 00960100000226 dated 14.03.2014 for an amount of Rs 21,36,100/- and Bank Guarantee No. 00960100000249, dated 26.06.2014 for an amount of Rs.10,68,035/- and its various efforts to approach the respondent to resolve the disputes, went in vain. In such circumstances, petitioner sent a Legal Notice dated 16.11.2018 to respondent to refund amount of Rs.32,04,135/- along with the @18% and further sent a notice dated 02.03.2020 to either make the payment within 15 days or consider the notice as 'Notice Invoking Arbitration under Clause 3 of the Part III -Standard Conditions of Supply Orders No. EAC/SO POV /03/2013-14 dated 03.03.2014 (12 Bases) (Main Order) and EAC/SO POV /01/2014-15 dated 26.05.2014 (Repeat Order)'.
3. In terms above, respondent was called upon to appoint an Arbitrator within sixty days to adjudicate the dispute(s) which arose b
Unilateral appointment of an Arbitrator is not acceptable, and an Arbitrator must be appointed in accordance with the arbitration agreement and the provisions of the Standard Conditions of Supply Ord....
Unilateral appointment of an Arbitrator is not acceptable as it defeats the purpose of unbiased adjudication of disputes between the parties.
The court asserted that an Arbitrator must be mutually appointed under contract terms to ensure unbiased resolution of disputes, rejecting unilateral appointments.
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the court's authority to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 when a dispute arises and no arbi....
The court has the authority to appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 when the parties fail to agree on the appointment.
The court has the authority to appoint a sole Arbitrator in accordance with the Arbitration Clause forming a part of the Contract.
Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is contrary to Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, necessitating mutual agreement for such appointment.
Strict enforcement of arbitration agreement and the law does not permit either party to act as an arbitrator or appoint the arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes.
The court's authority to appoint an arbitrator in cases where the parties are unable to agree, in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the provisions of the Arbitration & Concil....
The court appointed an arbitrator as the parties consented to arbitration under the existing arbitration clause, complying with statutory requirements.
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
