Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
C.HARI SHANKAR
J.D. Solutions – Appellant
Versus
Clix Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for appointment of arbitrator (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. unilateral appointment of arbitrator disputed (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. court appoints arbitrator and outlines process (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. petition disposed with orders (Para 14) |
1. This is a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1996 Act"), for appointment of an arbitrator.
2. Disputes arose, between the petitioners and the respondent, relating to a loan agreement dated 31st July, 2019.
3. On 11th July, 2020, the respondent issued a notice to the petitioners, under Section 21 of the 1996 Act, invoking arbitration and proposing to appoint Mr. Puneet Bhatnagar, an advocate, as the arbitrator to arbitrate on the dispute.
4. Mr. Puneet Bhatnagar informed the petitioners, vide letter dated 14th October, 2020, that he had accepted the appointment, and called on the petitioners to file its counter claim.
5. The petitioners, thereafter, informed Mr. Puneet Bhatnagar that it had not been served with the letter nominating him as the arbitrator or his letter accepting his nomination. Besides, it was pointed out that
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
