Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
Hashnine Systems Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Eastern Air Command Head Quarters, Indian Air Force – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. arbitration petition seeking appointment of arbitrator (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. dispute over unilateral arbitrator appointment (Para 4 , 5 , 7) |
| 3. court's overview of case records (Para 6) |
| 4. appointment of arbitrator and procedural adherence (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. disposition of petition and order communication (Para 11 , 12) |
1. The present petition has been preferred seeking appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for adjudication of disputes which have arisen between the parties.
2. The case of the petitioner in nutshell is that respondent has arbitrarily invoked the Bank Guarantee No. 00960100000226 dated 14.03.2014 for an amount of Rs.21,36,100/- and Bank Guarantee No. 00960100000249, dated 26.06.2014 for an amount of Rs.10,68,035/- and its various efforts to approach the respondent to resolve the disputes, went in vain. In such circumstances, petitioner sent a Legal Notice dated 16.11.2018 to respondent to refund amount of Rs.32,04,135/- along with the @18% and further sent a notice dated 02.03.2020 to either make the payment within 15 days or consider the notice as `Notice Invoking Arbitration
The court asserted that an Arbitrator must be mutually appointed under contract terms to ensure unbiased resolution of disputes, rejecting unilateral appointments.
Unilateral appointment of an Arbitrator is not acceptable as it defeats the purpose of unbiased adjudication of disputes between the parties.
Unilateral appointment of an Arbitrator is not acceptable, and an Arbitrator must be appointed in accordance with the arbitration agreement and the provisions of the Standard Conditions of Supply Ord....
Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is contrary to Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, necessitating mutual agreement for such appointment.
A court, under sections 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, is obligated to appoint an arbitrator when a valid arbitration clause exists and the other party does not oppose the pet....
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.
The court's authority to appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court affirmed the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for disputes arising from an uncontested License Agreement.
A sole arbitrator can be appointed by a party if the opposing party defaults on arbitrator appointment, per arbitration clause and judicial precedent.
A party's right to appoint an arbitrator can be forfeited if they fail to do so within the agreed timeframe as per the arbitration agreement.
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
