Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
C.HARI SHANKAR
Cyfuture India Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Futuretimes Technology India Private Limited – Respondent
(Video-Conferencing)
C. Hari Shankar, J.
ARB.P. 145/2021
1. This is a petition under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("1996 Act" for short), for appointment of an arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes between the parties.
2. The dispute, as set out in the petition, is contained in paras 1 to 24 thereof. As the respondent is not objecting to the appointment of an arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes, this Court is not burdening the order with a recital of the facts.
3. The Arbitration Clause, in the agreement between the parties, reads thus:
"F. Governing Law & Arbitration
This LOE and all matters arising out of or related to this LOE shall be governed by the laws of India and courts at New Delhi shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any matter of dispute arising under this LOE.
All disputes arising in relation to or pertaining to or under this LOE or any part thereof shall be resolved by a sole arbitrator mutually agreed between the parties, in accordance with the provision of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and amendments thereof The seat of Arbitration shall be New Delhi and the language shall be English."
4
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 affirms the validity of the arbitration agreement and appoints an arbitrator as the parties consented to resolve disputes via arbitration.
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 appointment of an arbitrator is based on the arbitration clause in the agreement, which governs the process for resolving disputes between the parties.
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 affirmed the enforceability of arbitration agreements and the necessity to refer disputes for arbitration according to the agreed terms.
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 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'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.
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
