Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
New Om Construction Co. - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
O.M.P.(T) (COMM.) 29 of 2020
Decided On : 03-09-2020
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. arbitrator appointment issue. (Para 1) |
| 2. agreement on substitute arbitrator. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. continuation of proceedings with new arbitrator. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. petition disposed. (Para 7) |
(Video-Conferencing)
O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 29/2020
1. This petition has been preferred under Section 15(2) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, for appointment of a substitute arbitrator, as Mr. K.K. Gupta, the learned Sole Arbitrator who had been appointed to adjudicate on the disputes between the parties, had superannuated without passing of award in the matter.
2. Reply and rejoinder had been filed. In the rejoinder, the petitioner has submitted that he has no objection to the appointment of Mr. S.S. Bansal, Additional Director (General) of the respondent, as the substitute arbitrator in place of Mr. K.K. Gupta and as suggested vide the letter dated 28th August, 2020 of the respondent.
3. Mr. Ankit Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, in view thereof, nothing survives for adjudication in this petition which may be disposed of accordingly.
4. In these circumstances, Mr. S.S. Bansal, Additional Director (General) of the respondent department, is appointed, by consent, as substitute arbitrator, in place of Mr. K.K. Gupta, who was conducting the arbitral proceedings thus far.
5. Learned Counsel for the parties are ad idem that, while Mr Bansal would not be required to re-record the evidence already recorded, final arguments in the matter may be addressed before him de novo.
6. Accordingly, Mr. Bansal would take over the proceedings from the stage of hearing of final arguments, whereafter he would proceed to pass the award in the matter.
7. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid 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
