Back
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Information Tv Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Jitendra Dahyabhai Patel – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, `1996 Act') has been filed by the Petitioner-Information TV Pvt. Ltd. seeking appointment of an arbitrator in terms of Clause 6 of the Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter, `MoU') dated 1st May, 2018. Clause 6 of the MoU reads as under:
"6. That MOU shall be construed in accordance with the laws in force in India and in the eventuality that any dispute or difference should arise on any matter relating to or arising out of the present MOU the same shall be settled by Arbitration and shall be referred to the Sole Arbitrator who shall be appointed by both parties mutually and whose decision shall be final and binding upon the parties. The Sole Arbitrator shall conduct the arbitration proceedings at New Delhi/Delhi. It is also agreed between the parties that arbitration proceeding would be conducted in English only and in no other language. Only appropriate Court at Delhi shall have jurisdiction to entertain the disputes that may arise out of this MOU. No other courts shall have jurisdiction."
3.
The main legal point established is that the filing of a petition under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act is not subject to a period of limitation and is covered by the residual provision Article 137 of ....
An application under Section 11 for appointment of an arbitrator is time-barred if filed after three years from the refusal to appoint, with delays not justified.
Arbitration requests must be filed within three years of the cause of action; failure to act in time bars subsequent petitions.
The main legal point established is the applicability of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in cases where a party fails to appoint an arbitrator within the stipulated time ....
Failure to appoint an arbitrator within the agreed timeframe under Arbitration Agreement allows the court to intervene and appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliatio....
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act requires strict adherence to limitation periods for the appointment of arbitrators; delays exceeding three years render petitions ex-facie time-barred.
(1) Appointment of Arbitrator – Limitation – There is a fine distinction between plea that claims raised are barred by limitation and plea that application for appointment of Arbitrator is barred by ....
The referral court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act must determine the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement and appoint an arbitrator if satisfied.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that issues of limitation and notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, fall within the realm of admissibility issues ....
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
