SURESH KUMAR KAIT
Sw Astik Pipe Ltd – Appellant
Versus
A Von Industries – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - The present petition has been filed under the provisions of Section 11(6) of the arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996 seeking appointment of an arbitrator.
2. The averments made in the present petition are that respondent had purchased HRPO Sheets, C.R. Sheets, C.R. Strips from the petitioner and in pursuance to said business dealing, for the period between 01.04.2018 till 4.12.2019, a total amount of Rs.15,72,850/- including interest @18% per annum till 04.12.2019 for the delayed payments, is due towards respondent. according to petitioner, a legal notice dated 23.12.2019 was sent to the respondent invoking arbitration and for appointment of arbitrator in terms contained in the Purchase Orders-cum-Tax Invoices, however, since respondent did not reply to the aforesaid legal notice, the present petition is filed.
3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that respondent has refused to accept notice of this petition and thereby, he is evading to resolve the disputes pending between the parties and so, the present petition be allowed and an arbitrator be appointed by this Court.
4. as per office report, notice sent to
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 court granted the petition for arbitration appointment, emphasizing the respondent's refusal to engage and affirming jurisdiction based on the terms in the invoice.
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.
In the absence of opposition, a court may appoint an arbitrator based on deemed service through electronic means for resolving contractual disputes.
Unilateral appointment of an Arbitrator is not acceptable, and an Arbitrator must be appointed in accordance with the arbitration agreement and the provisions of the Standard Conditions of Supply Ord....
The main legal point established is the court's authority to appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate disputes between parties.
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'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.
The court's authority to appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court asserted that an Arbitrator must be mutually appointed under contract terms to ensure unbiased resolution of disputes, rejecting unilateral appointments.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.