Back
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
Vimal Banka Karta of Vimal Kumar Bhajan Lal Banka Huf – Appellant
Versus
Royalgolf Link City Project Private Limited – Respondent
ORDER
Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of sole arbitrator for adjudication of disputes between the parties arising out of Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 15th June, 2016.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, Vimal Kumar Banka, is a Karta of Vimal Kumar Bhajan Lal Banka (HUF) and a resident of B-03, Sector-44, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. It is further submitted that he booked a Golf Suit Apartment (Project of Respondent No.1) with the number TF06/12/S3 for investment purposes.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 is a company constituted under the terms of the Companies Act, 2013 with its registered office located at M-53, II Floor, Block-M, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi-110048. The respondent No. 1 is involved in the real estate industry. The respondent No.2 is a director of respondent No.1 who provided a personal guarantee to the petitioner on behalf of respondent No.1 for the amount invested as well as the return/interest. The respondents No. 3 and 4 a
The court's decision emphasized the importance of arbitration clauses in agreements and the applicability of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in resolving disputes.
The presence of an arbitration clause in an agreement, the arbitrability of disputes, and the fulfillment of necessary requisites under the Arbitration Act influence the court's decision to appoint a....
The arbitration clause in a contract should be treated as an independent agreement, and the court has the authority to refer the matter to arbitration even if the main contract is disputed.
The court confirmed the right to appoint an arbitrator due to the respondent's non-compliance with the terms of the agreement, affirming that the disputes were arbitrable.
The court's decision emphasized the arbitrability of the disputes and the appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(5) of the arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996.
The court's authority to appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
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 when the parties fail to mutually appoint one,....
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
