Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
B4s Solutions Pvt Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Atc Telecom Infra Structure Pvt. Ltd - Respondent
Arb. P. 405 of 2022 & I.A. 5047 of 2022
Decided On : 01-04-2022
Arbitration - Appointment of Arbitrator - Summary: The court allowed the petitioner's request for the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The court appointed Mr. Justice V.K. Jain as the Arbitral Tribunal to arbitrate the disputes between the parties, in accordance with the dispute resolution clause of the subject agreement.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, pursuant to an agreement for service dated 18.02.2019. The parties attempted amicable resolution of disputes but were unsuccessful.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the petitioner's request and appointed Mr. Justice V.K. Jain as the Arbitral Tribunal to arbitrate the disputes between the parties. The Arbitral Tribunal was tasked with adjudicating the claims and counterclaims of the parties.
Issues: Appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the dispute resolution clause (Clause 11) of the subject agreement, which mandated arbitration by a Sole Arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 in case amicable settlement could not be reached.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and Mr. Justice V.K. Jain was appointed as the Arbitral Tribunal to arbitrate the disputes between the parties.
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. -
I.A. 5046/2022 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
ARB.P. 405/2022
1. Petitioner seeks appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 pursuant to an agreement for service dated 18.02.2019.
2. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent without prejudice to the objection with regard to the invocation submits that she has no objection to appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal.
4. Learned counsel for the parties inform that attempts were made for amicable resolution of the disputes, however, same could not be resolved.
5. Clause 11 of the subject agreement records as under:
11. DISPUTE RESOLUTION:
(a) In the event any disputes, difference or controversies should arise between the parties hereto, out of or in connection with the provisions of this Agreement, or any action taken hereunder, the parties hereto shall thoroughly explore all possibilities for an amicably settlement. In case amicably settlement cannot be reached, such disputes, differences or controversies shall be referred to arbitration by Sole Arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, including any amendment or re-enactment thereof.
(b) The proceedings of such arbitration shall be conducted in English language and the venue of such arbitration shall be at New Delhi.
(c) The award of such arbitration shall be final and binding upon the parties hereto.
6. With the consent of the parties, Mr. Justice V.K. Jain, (retd.) (former Judge of this Court) is appointed as the Arbitral Tribunal to arbitrate the disputes between the parties.
7. The Arbitral Tribunal shall adjudicate the claims and counter claims, if any, of the parties. The Arbitral Tribunal shall fix its own fee.
8. The arbitrator shall furnish the requisite disclosure under section 12(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 within two weeks of entering reference.
9. Petition is allowed in the above terms.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, in accordance with the dispute r....
The court confirmed the agreement provisions for arbitration and appointed a retired judge as the Arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, ensuring all parties consented to the process.
Parties can seek arbitration under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act when settlement talks fail, emphasizing the need for an appointed arbitrator to resolve disputes.
The court has jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, when amicable resolution of disputes fails.
The consent of both parties to appoint a sole arbitrator underscores the principle of mutual agreement in arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court reaffirmed that the existence of an arbitration agreement is sufficient for the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The appointment of an arbitrator is based on the arbitration clause in the agreement, which governs the process for resolving disputes between the parties.
The Court may defer an application under S. 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act if the contract mandates a preliminary negotiation mechanism that has not yet been exhausted by the parties.
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.
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
