Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
K.S. Jain – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute details and invocation of arbitration. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner requests for arbitrator appointment. (Para 4) |
| 3. court's observations on respondent's delays. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. appointment of arbitrator and procedural guidelines. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. conclusion and order for a copy of the decision. (Para 10) |
The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.
1. The relief sought in the present petition before this Court is to appointed sole Arbitrator to under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate the dispute with respondent.
2. According to petitioner, pursuant to tender rates dated 05.12.2012 submitted by the it with the respondent, the work for linking of BG Track & Turnouts, provision of glued joint, SEJ's, dismantling of existing track & turnouts, handling, lifting, loading, unloading and spreading of ballast, leading of P. Way materials and other misc. works in Motichur, Raiwala, Harrawala yard & shunting neck, extension in Dehradun yards in connection with development of facilities for running 18 coach trains between Hardwar-Dehradun section of Moradabad Division was awarded to the petiti
The court confirmed the validity of invoking arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act when disputes arise over contract performance and payment.
Arbitration Agreement - Appointment of - The learned Arbitrator shall ensure compliance of Section 12 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before commencing the arbitration.
The court affirmed that arbitration proceedings should be initiated to resolve disputes, even if a no-claim certificate is invoked, unless the claims are manifestly devoid of merit.
The main legal point established is the necessity of appointing an independent arbitrator to resolve disputes, in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and rele....
The court upheld the arbitrability of disputes arising from contractual obligations, appointing a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
The court affirmed that when parties acknowledge disputes in a contractual agreement, an arbitrator must be appointed to resolve these disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Appointment of a sole arbitrator must comply with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and should not be in violation of relevant legal precedents.
The court's decision emphasized the appointment of a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Disputes arising from contractual agreements are subject to arbitration as per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 when both parties concede to arbitrability.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to appoint an arbitrator to resolve disputed claims between parties in accordance with Section 11(6) of the Arbitration an....
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
