Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
C.HARI SHANKAR
Randhawa Construction Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
HCBS Promoters and Developers Private Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appointment of arbitrator by mutual consent. (Para 1) |
| 2. previous detailed factual background noted. (Para 2) |
| 3. instructions regarding arbitration process. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. conclusion to dispose of the petition. (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT
1. The learned counsel for the parties, submit ad idem, but without prejudice to the rights and contentions of either of the parties, that this petition may be disposed of by appointment of an arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes between the parties and by referring this petition to the arbitrator as an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for decision by the learned arbitrator.
2. The facts of the case have already been set out in detail in the order dated 25th January, 2021, and are not, therefore, being reiterated, to maintain brevity and avoid repetition.
3. In accordance with the suggestions ad idem by the learned counsel for the parties, I appoint Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajit Bharihoke (Retd.), as the arbitrator, to arbitrate on the disputes between the parties. The contact details of the learned arbitrator are as under;
Phone No.: 9650110057
E-mail ID: ajitbharihoke@gmail.com
4.
Parties may appoint an arbitrator by mutual agreement, leading to dispute resolution under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing the need for adherence to due process.
The court affirmed that parties can mutually consent to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, with obligations on the arbitrator to ensure expeditious resolution of disputes.
The court appointed a retired judge to arbitrate disputes between parties, allowing all issues to remain open for decision under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Parties agreed to refer disputes to arbitration under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; interim directions remain operational until arbitrator's decision.
The arbitration process is governed by mutual consent, allowing parties to appoint an arbitrator and seek interim relief under Sections 12(2) and 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court's decision was based on the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the appointment of the arbitrator was in accordance with the legal framework provided by the Act.
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.
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 for disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, affirming the parties' agreement on arbitration without addressing the merits of the controversy.
The court appointed an arbitrator to resolve disputes between parties, emphasizing adherence to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act procedures.
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
