Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
Amazing India Contractors Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Indian Railway Stations Development Corporation Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appointment of arbitrator under arbitration act (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. allegations of breach and termination by respondent (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. unilateral appointment of arbitrator disputed (Para 13 , 15) |
| 4. right to appoint arbitrator and exclusivity (Para 16 , 17) |
| 5. court's directive to appoint arbitrator (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT
Suresh Kumar Kait, J. (Oral)--The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.
I.A. 12233/2021 (exemption)
2. Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application is disposed of.
ARB.P. 922/2021 & I.A.12232/2021
3. The present petition has been filed by petitioner seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator under the provisions of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
4. Petitioner, a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, claims to be involved in the business of Facilities Management and Infrastructure Management Projects throughout India. Respondent is said to be a Special Purpose vehicle and a Joint Venture company of IRCON International Limited, a Government of India Undertaking, under the Ministry of Railways and Rail Land Development Autho
Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator by a party with a vested interest is improper and contradicts established legal principles regarding impartiality in arbitration.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of an Arbitrator must comply with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the choice of the Arbitrator must not ha....
: In cases where one party has a right to appoint a sole arbitrator, its choice will always have an element of exclusivity in determining or charting the course for dispute resolution.
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....
Point of Law : 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 ....
The Managing Director cannot arbitrarily appoint an arbitrator if their interest affects impartiality; such appointments contravene Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act.
A party with the exclusive right to appoint a sole arbitrator cannot have the other party recommend arbitrators, ensuring impartiality in dispute resolution.
The main legal principle established is the court's authority to appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to adjudicate disputes between parties wh....
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....
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
