Back
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
G. R. Builders Through Its Prop Sanjeev Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Metro Speciality Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. By way of ARB.P.628/2023 filed under Section 11(6) and (8) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter, the `A&C Act'), the petitioner seeks appointment of an independent and impartial arbitrator as well as declaration to the effect that the respondent's nomination and appointment of the arbitrator is contrary to the procedure stipulated in the Letter of Intent executed between the parties.
Petitioner has also sought interim relief by way of OMP(I)(COMM) 203/2023 filed under Section 9 of the A&C Act, thereby seeking direction to the respondent to deposit the amount as per final bill dated 22.11.2022.
2. Facts in a nutshell are that on 19.03.2021, respondent issued Letter of Intent (hereafter, `LOI') to the petitioner to carry out `Civil and Structure Works' for its proposed `Metro Cancer Building at Sector-16A, Faridabad, Haryana'. The time for completion was 12 months from the date of the issuance of the LOI.
3. Petitioner claims that it had completed the project timely and to the satisfaction of the respondent however, it did not receive the entire payment against the final RA Bill dated 22.11.2022 for a gross amount of Rs.12,99,04,110/-. It is claimed that a
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the court's jurisdiction to entertain a petition seeking the appointment of an arbitrator, based on the definitions of 'court'....
The choice of venue in an arbitration agreement can determine the seat of arbitration, and the amendments made to Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in 2019 are applicable to p....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the venue of arbitration specified in the contract determines the jurisdiction of the court to entertain applications for the appointment of a....
The court emphasized that the jurisdiction for the petitions lay in Delhi, and the respondent's unilateral appointment procedure for arbitrators was impermissible under the law.
The court emphasized that the clear jurisdiction clause within the arbitration agreement led to habitual jurisdiction in the appointed court, regardless of other locations of execution.
The designated seat of arbitration is akin to an exclusive jurisdiction clause, and the court's jurisdiction is determined based on the arbitration clause and legal precedents.
The designation of a venue for arbitration also constitutes the seat, thus excluding jurisdiction of other courts as per party autonomy principles.
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
