Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SANJEEV NARULA
Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Seven Hills Project Private Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition under arbitration act for sole arbitrator appointment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. dispute arising from the terms of the work orders and arbitration clause. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. respondent contests existence of dispute and proper invocation of arbitration. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. court analysis of the necessity for arbitration based on the dispute. (Para 10) |
| 5. appointment of sole arbitrator and directives for proceedings. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral)--The present petitions under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seek appointment of a Sole Arbitrator.
PETITIONER'S CONTENTIONS
2. The case of the Petitioner is that the Respondent has been working as a sub-contractor in respect of the following Work Orders-
A. Work Order No. OSE/NSBP/SC-W0/2015-16111 dated 23rd July, 2015 towards special repair works towards Nagpur Betul Road project. (Giving rise to ARB.P. 644/2020).
B. Work Order No. OSE/C/NBP-F/SC-W0/007 dated 19th September, 2015 towards embankment and subgrade construction for Nagpur Bypass road project. (Giving rise to ARB.P. 658/2020).
3. It was agreed between the parties that the bills raised under
The court ruled that the existence of a bona fide dispute necessitates arbitration, and a unilateral appointment mechanism for an arbitrator violated established legal standards.
. In the absence of any demand with specific reference to the work order, it is not possible to determine what is the disputed amount with regard to the work order
The court appointed a sole arbitrator to resolve contractual disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, affirming the parties' mutual agreement for arbitration.
The main legal point established is that the fulfillment of agreed procedures, such as conciliation as a condition precedent, is necessary before invoking the arbitration clause. The Court emphasized....
The court affirmed that the disputes between the parties were arbitral in nature and appointed a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court established that an arbitration agreement exists between the petitioner and the respondents, as the executing agency was acting on behalf of the principal; claims related to payment dispute....
Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is impermissible; parties must appoint an arbitrator jointly or seek court appointment to ensure unbiased dispute resolution.
An arbitration agreement is enforceable despite claims of payment completion, recognizing the agency relationship between parties, allowing disputes to be resolved through arbitration.
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
