Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Aristoplast Products Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Energy Efficiency Services Limited - Respondent
Arb.P. 1094 of 2021 & I.A. 14694 of 2021 and I.A. 14695 of 2021
Decided On : 12-11-2021
| 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) |
(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's arbitrator.
3. Accordingly, the present matter is referred to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) to appoint an arbitrator on behalf of the respondent. The two learned Arbitrators would, thereafter, proceed to appoint the presiding Arbitrator so that the arbitral tribunal would be constituted and the arbitral proceedings could take off. The DIAC is requested to make the appointment as expeditiously as possible.
4. With the aforesaid observations, this petition alongwith pending applications stands disposed of.
A party's right to appoint an arbitrator can be forfeited if they fail to do so within the agreed timeframe as per the arbitration agreement.
The court has the authority to appoint an arbitrator on behalf of a party if the other party fails to appoint its arbitrator within the specified period, as per the arbitration clause in the agreemen....
The court referred disputes between the parties to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act without addressing merits, emphasizing procedural adherence and open questions for the arbitr....
Parties consented to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, allowing referral to an arbitrator for dispute resolution, emphasizing procedural efficiency.
A sole arbitrator can be appointed by a party if the opposing party defaults on arbitrator appointment, per arbitration clause and judicial precedent.
The court emphasized that the timeframe for appointing an arbitrator, as set in the agreement, is mandatory, and any deviation undermines the arbitration agreement's validity.
A court, under sections 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, is obligated to appoint an arbitrator when a valid arbitration clause exists and the other party does not oppose the pet....
The court directed the appointment of an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, reaffirming the binding nature of the arbitration clause within the parties' agreement.
Strict enforcement of arbitration agreement and the law does not permit either party to act as an arbitrator or appoint the arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes.
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
