Back
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
Bharti P Patel And Another – Appellant
Versus
Harcharan Singh Ranauta And Another – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - The present petition has been preferred under the provisions of Section 11(5) of the arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996 seeking appointment of sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes inter-se the parties.
2. as per the case of the petitioners, on 17.08.2020, the petitioners and the respondents entered into a Loan Repayment and Settlement agreement whereby it was agreed that respondent No.1 would issue a post-dated cheque of Rs.12,05,50,191/- from his account for payment of the admitted liability. It is stated that respondent No.1 in conspiracy with other Directors of respondent No. 2, dishonestly issued a cheque of Rs.12,05,50,191/- from the dormant account of respondent No.2, which on presentation was returned. Thereafter, disputes arose between the parties.
3. accordingly, a legal notice was sent by the petitioners to the respondents on 28.07.2021 calling upon them to pay Rs.12,05,50,191/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. It is submitted that despite receipt of the said notice, the respondents failed to make any payment to the petitioners.
4. Subsequently, on 20.08.2021, petitioners invoked the arbitration Clause in terms of the Loan Repayment and
The court's decision was based on the deliberate non-appearance of the respondents and the petitioners' compliance with the legal requirements for appointment of a sole arbitrator.
The court affirmed the need for compliance with contractually agreed arbitration clauses, appointing an arbitrator when parties fail to cooperate.
Appointment of Sole Arbitrator and Compliance with Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, when the respondent deliberately ....
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 appointed a sole arbitrator for resolving disputes under a loan agreement after respondents failed to adhere to repayment terms and contested the agreement's existence.
The failure to provide proof of service for a notice under S. 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not divest the Court of its power under S. 11 to appoint an arbitrator when a valid arbit....
The court ruled that a party's failure to comply with a contractual agreement justifies the appointment of an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, validating service via multiple de....
In the absence of opposition, a court may appoint an arbitrator based on deemed service through electronic means for resolving contractual disputes.
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
