Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
Sanjay Iron and Steel Limited – Appellant
Versus
Steel Authority of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner claims breach of contract. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner asserts entitlement to arbitration. (Para 4 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. respondent challenges petitioner's claims. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. court reviews dispute resolution process. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 5. parties directed to attempt conciliation before arbitration. (Para 28) |
| 6. conclusion of the court's directive. (Para 29) |
JUDGMENT
1. Petitioner - M/s Sanjay Iron & Steel Ltd. claims to be doing business of trading of iron and steel. According to petitioner, respondent -Steel Authority of India Limited is a Government Company, who had invited online tenders for operating as Distributor involving purchasing, transportation, handling and storage, processing and sales to dealers of TMT/TMT Coils/at Panchkula Cluster in the State of Haryana. The petitioner claims to have submitted its tender on 08.08.2019, which was accepted by respondent vide letter of intent/acceptance bearing No. Tender No. SAIL/NR/Distributor/19-20/01A, dated 25.06.2019. Petitioner further claims to have deposited full security amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and bank guarantees to the tune
Parties must exhaust conciliation procedures before pursuing arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing adherence to specified dispute resolution clauses in contracts.
Parties must adhere to agreed arbitration procedures; failure to do so precludes judicial appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
The conciliation process under the Arbitration Agreement was not mandatory, and the petitioner's attempts at mutual consultation satisfied the requirements of the contract.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of an independent sole arbitrator is necessary, and the refusal of the petitioner to participate in conciliation proceedings d....
The Conciliation process mentioned in the Contract was not mandatory and could not affect the petitioner's right to invoke the Arbitration Agreement, especially when there was justified urgency to pr....
The main legal point established is that the arbitration application was not premature, and a case was made for the appointment of an arbitrator to decide the disputes between the parties.
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
