Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
C.HARI SHANKAR
Ashok Kumar R – Appellant
Versus
PNB Housing Finance Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. disputes under loan agreement subject to arbitration. (Para 1) |
| 2. authority to appoint arbitrator cannot be unilateral. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. court appoints new arbitrator and disposes petition. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
(video-conferencing)
O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 39/2021
1. Arbitral proceedings, between the parties, were pending before Mr. K.K. Nangia, who had been appointed as arbitrator in terms of Clause 10.8 of the Loan Agreement, whereunder the disputes between the parties arose. Clause 10.8 of the Loan Agreement reads thus:
"Any and all disputes, claims, differences arising out of or in connection with the Loan Documents and/or the performance of the Loan Documents shall be settled by Arbitration to be referred to a sole arbitrator to be appointed by PNBHFL and the award, thereupon, shall be binding upon the Parties. The place of arbitration shall be in Delhi or any other place as arbitrator may decide and shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and any statutory amendments thereof. The proceeding of Arbitration Tribunal shall be conducted in English Language. Each party, has to bear cost of repres
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.
Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is contrary to Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, necessitating mutual agreement for such appointment.
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.
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 affirms the validity of the arbitration agreement and appoints an arbitrator as the parties consented to resolve disputes via arbitration.
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....
The court emphasized that the timeframe for appointing an arbitrator, as set in the agreement, is mandatory, and any deviation undermines the arbitration agreement's validity.
Strict enforcement of arbitration agreement and the law does not permit either party to act as an arbitrator or appoint the arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes.
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....
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
