Back
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
Benjamin Benjamin And Vats – Appellant
Versus
North Delhi Municipal Corporation – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 11 (6) of the arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996 seeking appointment of arbitrator for adjudication of disputes with respondent.
2. Petitioner, a proprietorship concern, claims to be engaged in the business of providing services of architects Engineers and Urban Planners. Petitioner claims to have been engaged by the respondent to render consultancy services for a project under which construction of 100 beds was to be done at Balak Ram Hospital at Timarpur. Though the employer of the said work was Public Works Department, however, the work was later transferred to the respondent. For this purpose, an agreement dated 27.03.2003 was entered between the parties, which contained all the terms and conditions as well as details of various activities which were to be carried by the petitioner. The work was to commence on the 30th day of entering into the agreement i.e. 25.04.2003 and was to be completed within 24 months thereof i.e. 24.04.2005.
3. Petitioner claims that during the execution of the work, the architectural drawings of the ward block was modified/revised several times and p
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to appoint an independent arbitrator for adjudication of disputes based on the arbitration agreement.
The court ruled that disputes under an arbitration agreement are arbitrable and can be resolved through appointed arbitrators, affirming the consent of both parties.
The court's power to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the arbitrability of disputes under the agreement's Clause 25.
Disputes arising under an agreement concerning construction are arbitrable, and a court may appoint an arbitrator as per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
No single party can be permitted to unilaterally appoint the Arbitrator, as it would defeat the purpose of unbiased adjudication of dispute between parties.
The court's decision emphasizes the validity of invoking arbitration in accordance with the arbitration clause of the work order and the importance of compliance with Section 12 of the Arbitration an....
The court has the authority to appoint a sole Arbitrator in accordance with the Arbitration Clause forming a part of the Contract.
Appointment of a sole arbitrator must comply with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and should not be in violation of relevant legal precedents.
The court's decision emphasized the appointment of a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
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
