Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
C.HARI SHANKAR
Pansari Developers Limited – Appellant
Versus
Dhani Loans and Services Limited – Respondent
1. This is a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for reference of the dispute between the parties.
2. The dispute arises out of a Loan Agreement dated 30th June, 2018 between the petitioner and the respondents. The grievance of the petitioner, against the respondents, is that the respondents were charging interest, on the amounts lent to the petitioner at rates higher than those stipulated in the loan agreement. This interest, according to the petitioner, is returnable by the respondent. The respondents dispute the claim.
3. The loan agreement contains the following arbitration clause:
"ARTICLE 12: ARBITRATION
12.1 This Loan Documents is/shall be governed by Indian laws and the courts at New Delhi shall have exclusive jurisdiction relating to any matter/issue under or pursuant to the Loan Documents. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, if any dispute/disagreement/differences ("Dispute") arise between the Parties (including any Borrower(s) during the subsistence of the Loan Documents and/or thereafter, in connection with, inter alia, the validity, interpretation, implementation and/or alleged breach of any provision of
An arbitration clause conferring exclusive jurisdiction for arbitrator appointment to one party is unenforceable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, necessitating court intervention for appoi....
Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is contrary to Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, necessitating mutual agreement for such appointment.
The court appointed an arbitrator to resolve disputes as per the arbitration clause in the agreement, emphasizing that the parties are bound to arbitrate their disagreements.
Appointment of an arbitrator in instances where the respondent does not object to arbitration is valid under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing the importance of efficient dispute reso....
The court found the arbitration clause unenforceable as it contradicted statutory provisions, appointing a new arbitrator while affirming the binding nature of arbitration according to the provisions....
The court's jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is limited to confirming the existence of an arbitration agreement, not its validity.
The court affirms the validity of the arbitration agreement and appoints an arbitrator as the parties consented to resolve disputes via arbitration.
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
