Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
C.HARI SHANKAR
Ashutosh Enterprises – Appellant
Versus
Indian Trade Promotion Organization – Respondent
1. Clause 8 of the contract between the parties, which provides for dispute resolution, reads thus:
"8. Dispute Resolution
The Parties shall attempt in good faith to resolve any disputes or claims arising out of or in relation to this Agreement ("Difference") promptly by negotiation between the Parties. In the event that the Parties fail to settle/resolve the disputes amicably within 30 days, then the same shall be referred to and settled by a sole Arbitrator to be appointed by CMD, ITPO. The Arbitration proceedings shall be conducted at New Delhi, Indian in English Language in accordance with the Indian Laws (both Substantive and Procedural) under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 as amended and re-enacted from time to time. The arbitration award shall be final and binding on the Parties."
2. It is apparent that Clause 8 is in the teeth of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, read with the Seventh Schedule thereto and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd., 2019 SCC Online SC 1517: Bharat Broadband Network Ltd. v. United Telecom Ltd., (2019) 5 SCC 755: and TRF Limited v. Energo Engi
The court found the arbitration clause unenforceable as it contradicted statutory provisions, appointing a new arbitrator while affirming the binding nature of arbitration according to the provisions....
Appointment of an arbitrator in instances where the respondent does not object to arbitration is valid under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing the importance of efficient dispute reso....
The court appointed an arbitrator to resolve disputes as per the arbitration clause in the agreement, emphasizing that the parties are bound to arbitrate their disagreements.
A court, under sections 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, is obligated to appoint an arbitrator when a valid arbitration clause exists and the other party does not oppose the pet....
Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is contrary to Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, necessitating mutual agreement for such appointment.
The court affirms the validity of the arbitration agreement and appoints an arbitrator as the parties consented to resolve disputes via arbitration.
An arbitration clause that allows one party exclusive authority to appoint an arbitrator is invalid and contradicts statutory provisions, necessitating the appointment of a new arbitrator.
The court's authority to appoint an arbitrator in cases where the parties are unable to agree, in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the provisions of the Arbitration & Concil....
An arbitration clause conferring exclusive jurisdiction for arbitrator appointment to one party is unenforceable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, necessitating court intervention for appoi....
The authority to appoint an arbitrator cannot be solely conferred to one party, as per the mandatory provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
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
