Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Limited – Appellant
Versus
IHQ of Ministry of Defence (Army) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. existence of arbitration clause acknowledged. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. respondent's proposal for multiple arbitrators is challenged. (Para 6) |
| 3. supreme court emphasizes sole arbitrator's exclusivity. (Para 7) |
| 4. appointment of sole arbitrator mandated. (Para 8) |
| 5. order details on arbitration fee and compliance. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT
Suresh Kumar Kait, J. (Oral)--The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.
1. 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 for adjudication of disputes with the respondent.
2. Petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, who is engaged in the business of manufacturing of mustard oil. Respondent is a Government organization under the Ministry of Defence, who invited bids for supply of 20500 metric tonne (MT) edible oil vide proposal No.62801/Q/1/RPF/Edible oil/2020-21/ APO/PUR-IV, dated 04/02/2020. The petitioner claims to have participated in the bid and submitted the requisite documents and EMD of Rs. 1,15,13,786/. The bid of petitioner was accepted by th
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 point established in the judgment is the exclusivity of the right to appoint a sole arbitrator when one party has such a right, as per the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
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....
Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator by a party with a vested interest is improper and contradicts established legal principles regarding impartiality in arbitration.
A party cannot unilaterally appoint an arbitrator when disputes arise, as this infringes on unbiased adjudication rights, affirming established legal principles.
: 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.
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 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....
The unilateral appointment of an arbitrator violates the principle of unbiased adjudication, requiring mutual agreement between parties for such appointments.
The court's decision emphasizes the importance of referring disputes to arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
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
