Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SANJEEV NARULA
Mohd. Iqbal – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks appointment of sole arbitrator after prolonged arbitration delays. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. respondent's lack of action on arbitration reconstitution criticized. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court highlights the frustrating delay and fault of respondent. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. court appoints sole arbitrator due to arbitral deadlock. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 5. final directions for proceeding before appointed sole arbitrator. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
JUDGMENT
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral):--Frustrated with never-ending arbitration proceedings, the Petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, [hereinafter `the Act'] for the appointment of an independent Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes that arose 16 years ago on account of alleged illegal termination of a contract. The facts noted hereinafter reveal a highly worrying and disappointing situation that makes a mockery of arbitration proceedings.
2. The Competent Authority of Northern Railways (being the Respondent herein) vide letter of acceptance dated 15th July, 2003 accepted the Petitioner's bid in respect of its te
The court may appoint a Sole Arbitrator when a party's prolonged failure to reconstitute the Arbitral Tribunal frustrates the arbitration process.
The court emphasized the neutrality and objectivity of the arbitral tribunal, as provided in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and various judgments, in determining the termination of the a....
The necessity to appoint a new Arbitrator is confirmed under Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, recognizing the continuation of the arbitration process post-demise of the ori....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the ineligibility of the appointed arbitrator under Section 12(5) read with Schedule VII of the Arbitration Act and the requirement for a panel of ....
The court emphasized the necessity of appointing an independent Sole Arbitrator for arbitration disputes, following the principles established in prior Supreme Court judgments.
Delays in arbitration proceedings and failure to comply with the requirements of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can warrant the termination of an arbitrator's mandate.
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.
Arbitrators must be impartial and capable of performing their duties; prolonged inaction in arbitration proceedings justifies termination of their mandate.
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.
The petitioner must first seek termination of the existing Arbitrator's mandate through the appropriate civil court before requesting a new Arbitrator, as the existing proceedings had commenced.
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
