Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SANJEEV NARULA
Trimax It Infrastructure and Services Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Transport Corporation – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishment of arbitration agreement. (Para 2) |
| 2. respondent's objections to arbitration. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's analysis of objections and authority. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. appointment of sole arbitrator. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. final outcome of the petition. (Para 17) |
JUDGMENT
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral):--The existence of arbitration agreement between the parties is not in dispute, yet Delhi Transport Corporation rigidly opposes this petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter, `the Act'] seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator. Let's examine the merits of the objections.
2. The factual matrix is as follows:
(i) Pursuant to a request for proposal issued in January, 2015 by the Respondent, the Petitioner submitted a bid. It was declared to be the successful bidder, and this led to issuance of Letter of Acceptance dated 1st September, 2015. A formal Work Order was executed shortly thereafter on 30th September, 2015. The said agreement contains an Arbitration Clause, which reads as under:
"5.2 Settlement of Disputes
A. Performance of the contract is governed by the terms &cond
The court reinforced that unilateral appointment of an arbitrator contradicts arbitration laws, allowing a petition for appointing a Sole Arbitrator despite an ongoing moratorium under IBC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of an arbitrator must be in accordance with the agreed procedure in the contract. If the appointment is not in line with the a....
A unilateral right of appointment for an arbitrator in an arbitration agreement is impermissible; however, notice of intent to arbitrate, even when lacking technical precision, can suffice for procee....
An arbitrator's appointment must adhere to the agreed procedure; failure to do so renders the appointment invalid under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act.
The Court clarified that deletion of a party from proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not preclude the invocation of the arbitration clause against the deleted pa....
Point of Law : S.13(2) provides that a party who intends to challenge appointment of an arbitrator shall, within fifteen days after becoming aware of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal or afte....
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
