Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
M/s Satya Developers Private Ltd - Appellant
Versus
Cinema Ventures Private Ltd - Respondent
Arb.P. No. 492 of 2020
Decided On : 07-04-2021
Arbitration - Appointment of Arbitrator - Summary: The court appointed an arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes between the parties, with the arbitrator entitled to charge fees in accordance with the Fourth Schedule of the 1996 Act or as otherwise fixed by him after consultation with the parties.
Fact of the Case:
The petition was filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the appointment of an arbitrator. There was no dispute regarding the arbitrability of the dispute or the existence of the arbitration agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The court appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Patnaik, a retired Judge of the Supreme Court of India, as the arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes between the parties. The arbitrator was entitled to charge fees in accordance with the Fourth Schedule of the 1996 Act or as otherwise fixed by him after consultation with the parties.
Issues: The issues of facts and law were to remain open for agitation and decision by the Arbitral Tribunal as constituted by the Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found no dispute regarding the arbitrability of the dispute or the existence of the arbitration agreement, and therefore appointed an arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes between the parties.
Final Decision: The court appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Patnaik as the arbitrator and disposed of the petition accordingly.
JUDGMENT
C. Hari Shankar, J. - This is a petition under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( the 1996 Act ), for appointment of an arbitrator.
2. Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 and Dr. Maurya Vijay Chandra, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2, have no objection to the request. The amount in dispute is stated to be in the region of ? 10 crores.
3. As there is no dispute regarding the arbitrability of the dispute or the existence of the arbitration agreement, it is not necessary to burden this order with a recital of the controversy set out in the petition. Suffice it to state that this order shall not be treated as any expression of opinion on the merits of the controversy in the petition, or the rival stands of any of the parties before this Court.
4. All issues of facts in law shall remain open for agitation and decision by Arbitral Tribunal as constituted by this Court.
5. In view thereof, this Court appoints Hon ble Mr Justice A. K. Patnaik, a learned retired Judge of the Supreme Court of India, (Phone No.011-26963011, Mob: 8800381113 (M) Email ID: justice.akpatnaik@gmail.com) as the arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes between the parties.
6. The arbitrator shall be entitled to charge fees in accordance with the Fourth Schedule of the 1996 Act or as otherwise fixed by him after consultation with the parties.
7. The learned arbitrator may file the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) of the 1996 Act, within a week of entering on the reference.
8. All parties would be at liberty to file their respective claims/counter claims before the learned arbitrator, in accordance with law and, if so filed, the learned arbitrator would consider and decide the same.
9. This petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
10. A copy of this order be given dasti under signature of the Court Master to learned counsel for the parties.
The court's decision was based on the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the appointment of the arbitrator was in accordance with the legal framework provided by the Act.
The court appointed an arbitrator for disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, affirming the parties' agreement on arbitration without addressing the merits of the controversy.
The court's decision emphasized the appointment of an arbitrator and the allowance of all contentions to be urged and contested in the arbitral proceedings.
The court appointed an arbitrator to resolve disputes as per the arbitration clause in the agreement, emphasizing that the parties are bound to arbitrate their disagreements.
Appointment of an arbitrator in instances where the respondent does not object to arbitration is valid under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing the importance of efficient dispute reso....
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....
Parties may appoint an arbitrator by mutual agreement, leading to dispute resolution under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing the need for adherence to due process.
The court affirms the validity of the arbitration agreement and appoints an arbitrator as the parties consented to resolve disputes via arbitration.
Parties can seek arbitration under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act when settlement talks fail, emphasizing the need for an appointed arbitrator to resolve disputes.
The appointment of an arbitrator is based on the arbitration clause in the agreement, which governs the process for resolving disputes between the 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
