Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
BSCPL Infrastructure Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute resolution process initiation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. opposition to unilateral arbitrator appointment. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 3. judicial authority on arbitrator selection. (Para 7 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. appointment of an arbitrator. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
Suresh Kumar Kait, J. The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.
1. Petitioner- M/s BSCPL Infrastructure Ltd. has preferred the present petition under Section 11 sub-section (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to settle the disputes with respondents, as mentioned in Para-7 of the present petition. A direction is also sought to respondents to produce original Agreement dated 31.03.2017.
2. The crux of the case in hand, according to petitioner, is that on 15.02.2017, respondent No.1- Chief Engineer (AF) WAC invited applications from the Contractors for issue of tender for the work relating to "Resurfacing of Runway and Aircraft Operating Areas at AF Station Chandigarh" and vide letter dated 15.02.2017, authorized the petitioner to tender for the above work and thereafter, petitioner submitted the tender. Respondent No.1, Accepting Offi
A party cannot unilaterally appoint an arbitrator when disputes arise, as this infringes on unbiased adjudication rights, affirming established legal principles.
Arbitration - Appointment of Arbitrator - In cases where one party has a right to appoint a sole arbitrator, its choice will always has an element of exclusivity in determining or charting course for....
The party with the right to appoint a sole arbitrator should not have the power to appoint a sole arbitrator when they have an interest in the outcome of the dispute.
A party cannot appoint an arbitrator who has an interest in the dispute's outcome, ensuring impartiality in arbitration proceedings.
The necessity for mutual agreement in appointing a sole arbitrator is critical to uphold fairness in arbitration processes, emphasizing the exclusivity of choice and impartiality in dispute resolutio....
The court has the authority to appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 when the parties fail to agree on the appointment.
The unilateral appointment of an arbitrator violates the principle of unbiased adjudication, requiring mutual agreement between parties for such appointments.
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.
Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator violates impartiality; appointment must comply with arbitration agreements and allow equal rights for both parties.
Whatever advantage a party may derive by nominating an arbitrator of its choice would get counter balanced by equal power with the other party. But, in a case where only one party has a right to appo....
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
