Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
Ram Charan Bansal - Appellant
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi - Respondent
ARB.P. 488 of 2019
Decided On : 31-10-2019
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition under section 11(6) of the act for arbitrator appointment. (Para 1) |
| 2. respondents consent to the appointment of an arbitrator. (Para 2) |
| 3. procedures for arbitration conducted under diac. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 4. petition disposed of as directed. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J.(Oral)--This is a petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (`Act') seeking appointment of an independent Arbitrator for adjudication of the claims of the parties with respect to Letter of Acceptance dated 16.02.2018 for work of A/R & M/O to various roads under Division SWR-II, PWD during 2017-18 (SH: Desilting of Storm water Drain by Super Sucker Machines of Sub Divn-23 (Najafgarh Bijwasan Road & Jhatikra Road).
2. Mr. Anupam Srivastava, Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, on instructions from Mr. S.N. Meena, Chief Engineer, submits that the respondents have no objection to the appointment of the Arbitrator.
3. With the consent of the parties, the parties are referred to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (`DIAC'). The parties will appear before the DIAC on 13th December, 2019 at 2 p.m. Arbitration will be conducted under the aegis of DIAC and as per the Rules and Procedure framed thereunder.
4. The Arbitrator will give disclosure under Section 12 of the Act before entering upon reference.
5. Fee of the Arbitral Tribunal shall be as per the Fourth Schedule of the Act.
6. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
