Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
National Research Development Corporation - Appellant
Versus
Saveer Biotech Ltd. - Respondent
Arb.P. 289 of 2020
Decided On : 26-03-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition seeks appointment of arbitrator. (Para 1) |
| 2. no objection from respondent for arbitration. (Para 2) |
| 3. existence of arbitration agreement and disputes mentioned. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 4. appointment and fees of arbitrator determined. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 5. petition disposed of. (Para 8) |
C. Hari Shankar, J.
ARB.P. 289/2020
1. This is a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("1996 Act"), to appoint an arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes between the parties.
2. Mr. Sanjay Sudan, the Director of the respondent, who appears in person, submits that he has no objection to the disputes being referred to arbitration.
3. The arbitration clause in the agreement executed between the parties reads as under:
"15. ARBITRATION AND JURISDICTION
(a) If any dispute or difference arises between the parties hereto as to the construction, interpretation, effect and implication of any provision of this Agreement Including the rights or liabilities or any claim or demand of any Party (or its extent) against other party or its sub-contractor or in regard to any matter under these presents but excluding any matters, decisions or determination of which is expressly provided for in this Agreement such disputes or differences shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the Secretary of Department of Legal Affairs, Govt. of India or his nominee. A reference to the arbitration under this clause shall be deemed to be submission within the meaning of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and any modification or re-enactment thereof and the rules framed there under for the time being in force.
(b) i) The venue of the Arbitration shall be at Delhi
ii) Each Party shall bear and pay its own cost of the arbitration proceedings unless the arbitrator otherwise decides in the award.
iii) The provision of this clause shall not be frustrated, abrogated or become in-operative, notwithstanding this Agreement expires or ceases to exist or is terminated or revoked or declared unlawful
c) The Courts at Delhi shall have exclusive jurisdiction in all matters concerning this Agreement, including any matter related to or arising out of the arbitration proceedings or any award made therein."
4. The substance of the dispute is set out in sub paras (i) to (xxv) of para 7 of the petition, which are not being reproduced to maintain brevity and avoid repetition, as there is no contest either regarding the existence of the arbitration agreement or the arbitrability of the dispute.
5. In view thereof, this Court appoints Mr.Kamal Nijhawan, Senior Advocate, as the arbitrator to arbitrate on the dispute between the parties. The contact details of the learned arbitrator are as under:
Mobile No.9810077957
Email ID.: knlawyer@gmail.com
6. The learned arbitrator would be entitled to charge fees in accordance with the Fourth Schedule to the 1996 Act or otherwise as determined by him in consultation with the parties.
7. The learned arbitrator would furnish the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) of the 1996 Act within one week of entering on the reference.
8. In view of the aforesaid observations, this petition stands disposed of.
The court affirms the validity of the arbitration agreement and appoints an arbitrator as the parties consented to resolve disputes via arbitration.
The appointment of an arbitrator is based on the arbitration clause in the agreement, which governs the process for resolving disputes between the parties.
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.
The court has jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, when amicable resolution of disputes fails.
The court's decision emphasized the appointment of an arbitrator and the allowance of all contentions to be urged and contested in the arbitral proceedings.
The court referred disputes between the parties to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act without addressing merits, emphasizing procedural adherence and open questions for the arbitr....
The court affirmed the enforceability of arbitration agreements and the necessity to refer disputes for arbitration according to the agreed terms.
An allegation of frivolity does not preclude the court from referring a dispute to arbitration when an arbitration agreement exists between the parties.
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
