Aristoplast Products Private Limited vs Energy Efficiency Services Limited

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

DELHI HIGH COURT
C.HARI SHANKAR
Aristoplast Products Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Energy Efficiency Services Limited – Respondent

Table of Content
1. right to appoint an arbitrator forfeited. (Para 1)
2. no objection to using diac for arbitration. (Para 2)
3. referral to diac for appointing a respondent's arbitrator. (Para 3)
4. petition and applications disposed. (Para 4)

ORDER (Oral)

(Video-Conferencing)

1. This is a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator on behalf of the respondent. The arbitration clause, in the agreement between the parties, envisages arbitration by a three member arbitral tribunal. The petitioner contends that, having appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.C. Chopra, a Retired Judge of this Court, as its Arbitrator and intimated the respondent accordingly, the respondent failed to appoint its arbitrator within the period of 42 days envisaged by Clause 6.2.6 of the agreement between the parties, the right of the respondent to appoint its arbitrator stands forfeited and this Court would have to appoint the respondent's arbitrator.

2. Mr. Vishal Arun, learned Counsel for the respondent has no objection, but suggests that the matter may be referred to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) to appoint the respondent

Click Here to Read the rest of this document