Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
C.HARI SHANKAR
Satya Developers Private Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Cinema Ventures Private Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for appointment of arbitrator due to dispute. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's observations on arbitrability and open issues. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. appointment of arbitrator and procedural directions. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
1. This is a petition under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the 1996 Act"), for appointment of an arbitrator.
2. Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 and Dr. Maurya Vijay Chandra, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2, have no objection to the request. The amount in dispute is stated to be in the region of. 10 crores.
3. As there is no dispute regarding the arbitrability of the dispute or the existence of the arbitration agreement, it is not necessary to burden this order with a recital of the controversy set out in the petition. Suffice it to state that this order shall not be treated as any expression of opinion on the merits of the controversy in the petition, or the rival stands of any of the parties before this Court.
4. All issues of facts in law shall remain open for agitation and decision by Arbitral Tribunal as constituted by this Court.
5. In view thereof, this Cou
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'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....
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 appointed a retired judge to arbitrate disputes between parties, allowing all issues to remain open for decision under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
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 affirms the validity of the arbitration agreement and appoints an arbitrator as the parties consented to resolve disputes via arbitration.
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 emphasized the appointment of an arbitrator and the allowance of all contentions to be urged and contested in the arbitral proceedings.
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
