Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Ultra Mega Power Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
HBL Power Systems Limited - Respondent
Arb.P. 338 of 2021 & I.A. 3535 of 2021 (for condonation of delay of 54 days in re-filing)
Decided On : 15-11-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for arbitration filed under section 11(6) (Para 1) |
| 2. respondent's agreement to arbitration (Para 2) |
| 3. disputes referred to diac for arbitration (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. disposition of pending applications (Para 7) |
C. Hari Shankar, J.
ARB.P. 338/2021 & I.A. 3535/2021 (for condonation of delay of 54 days in re-filing)
1. This petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("1996 Act") seeking appointment of an arbitrator to arbitrate on the dispute between the parties.
2. Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent, has no objection if the dispute is referred to arbitration without prejudice to all his contentions in response to the submissions of the petitioner.
3. Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the disputes, and keeping all questions of fact and law open for decision by the learned Arbitrator, this petition is disposed of by referring the disputes between the parties to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), which would appoint a suitable arbitrator to arbitrate thereon.
4. The arbitration shall take place under the aegis of the DIAC and would abide by its rules and regulations.
5. The arbitrator would also be entitled to charge fees in accordance with the schedule of fees stipulated by the DIAC.
6. The arbitrator would furnish the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) of the 1996 Act within a week of entering on reference.
7. All pending applications are also disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
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....
Consent of both parties allows for disputes to be referred to arbitration, reserving all legal questions related to arbitrability and claims for later determination.
Parties consented to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, allowing referral to an arbitrator for dispute resolution, emphasizing procedural efficiency.
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....
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....
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 appointed an arbitrator to resolve disputes as per the arbitration clause in the agreement, emphasizing that the parties are bound to arbitrate their disagreements.
An allegation of frivolity does not preclude the court from referring a dispute to arbitration when an arbitration agreement exists 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
