Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
C.HARI SHANKAR
Asian Hotels (North) Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Shivam Mediratta – Respondent
(Video-Conferencing)
C. Hari Shankar, J.
ARB.P. 579/2021 & O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 252/2020
1. These are interconnected petitions, arising out of common disputes.
2. On the last date of hearing, ARB.P. 579/2021 was adjourned in order to enable the parties to explore as to whether the disputes could be referred to arbitration by this Court and OMP(I)(COMM) 252/2020 be referred for the adjudication by the learned arbitrator as an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("1996 Act", in short).
3. Mr. Rajiv Talwar, learned Counsel for Mr. Shivam Mediratta, who is the respondent Arb. P. 579/2021 and is the petitioner in OMP(I)(COMM) 252/2020, is agreeable to the disputes being referred to arbitration by an arbitrator to be appointed by this Court. He submits that his only misgiving, regarding the reference of OMP(I)(COMM) 252/2020 to be adjudicated by the learned arbitrator as an application under Section 17 was regarding the authority of the arbitrator to adjudicate on prayer (a) in the said OMP.
4. Mr. Sidhant Kumar, learned counsel for M/s. Asian Hotels (North) Ltd., submits that there is no jurisdictional embargo on the arbitrator a
Disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act can be referred to arbitration with both parties' agreement, confirming the maintainability of applications before the arbitrator.
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 affirmed that arbitration agreements and interim procedures must adhere to the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, highlighting the importance of party consent in reso....
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.
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.
Disputes may be referred to arbitration even when parties disagree on the identity of the arbitrator; allegations in arbitration petitions are irrelevant to the court's decision on referral.
The court permitted a petition to be treated as an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to be decided by the arbitrator.
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.
Parties agreed to refer disputes to arbitration under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; interim directions remain operational until arbitrator's decision.
The court affirmed that disputes should be referred to arbitration under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, allowing for adequate security during the 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
