Back
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Overnite Express Limited – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. A petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been filed for appointment of the Arbitrator.
2. It is submitted in the petition that the respondent-Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'DMRC') had invited open bids by way of Open e-Tender bearing NIT No.118A0004 for licensing of commercial space/ area at different floors/ levels at New Delhi Metro Station of Delhi Airport Express Line of DMRC network on 'as is where is' basis. Subsequent to the Pre-Bid, site visit was made on 19th July, 2019 by the petitioner who then formulated and submitted its Bid on 08th August, 2018. The petitioner was declared the successful bidder in terms of Letter of Acceptance dated 22nd October, 2018 and the Contract was accorded to it. Four license Agreements dated 04th February, 2019 were executed which were duly registered on 26th April, 2019 with the Sub Registrar. Thereafter, the petitioner was called for joint measurement and for taking possession on 11th February, 2019. However, during the joint measurements, it was shocked and surprised to find that the scheduled commercial space/ license areas were
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of neutrality and impartiality of the Arbitrator in the appointment process, as well as the need for a broad-based panel of arbitrat....
An employee of the respondent or even a retired employee would be ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator. The panel of arbitrators should be broad-based and should include persons with diverse b....
The court reinforced that impartiality and independence of arbitrators is essential, disqualifying those with vested interests under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court emphasized the importance of a broad-based panel of arbitrators, providing parties with a wider choice for nominating their arbitrator.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a broad-based panel of arbitrators and the need for an independent and impartial arbitral tribunal, as mandated by previous jud....
The main legal point established is that the appointment procedure for arbitrators must be broad-based and meet the requirement of counterbalancing as per the arbitration agreement.
The court ruled that the appointment of arbitrators from the respondent's panel was valid, maintaining that established legal precedent surrounding impartiality does not support the petitioner's clai....
The appointment procedure prescribed in clause 3.37 of the RFP was found to be restrictive and not broad-based, impinging upon the validity of the appointment procedure. The 'counter balancing' as co....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a truly broadbased panel of arbitrators and the achievement of genuine counterbalancing of power in the appointment procedure f....
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
