Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Design Associates Inc., A Partnership Firm - Appellant
Versus
Employee State Insurance Corporation - Respondent
Arb.P. 573 of 2021 & I.A. 7786 of 2021 and Arb.P. 574 of 2021 & I.A. 7792 of 2021
Decided On : 17-11-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. parties agree to arbitration (Para 1) |
| 2. no need for facts; claim amount stated (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. arbitrator appointed with guidelines (Para 4) |
| 4. petitions disposed of as per order (Para 5) |
1. Learned Senior Counsel for parties are, ad idem, agreeable to the disputes in these two petitions being referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Court, keeping all contentions including maintainability, arbitrability and merits of the dispute open for arguments before the learned Arbitral Tribunal.
2. In view thereof, the necessity of entering into the facts of the case is obviated.
3. The total claim in both these matters put together is stated to be in the region of about Rs.12 crores.
4. Accordingly, the Court appoints Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Shali (Retd.), a former judge of this Court [Phone No.971749500; e-mail ID: vkshali54@gmail.com], as the arbitrator to arbitrate on the dispute between the parties. The learned arbitrator shall be entitled to charge fees in accordance with the Fourth Schedule to the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The learned Arbitrator would file the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) of the 1996 Act within a week of entering on reference. All rights and contentions of the parties are kept open for agitation before the learned arbitrator.
5. Accordingly, these petitions along with pending applications stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
The court facilitated arbitration by appointing an arbitrator, emphasizing that all rights and arguments remain open for determination by the Arbitral Tribunal.
The court appointed an arbitrator for disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, affirming the parties' agreement on arbitration without addressing the merits of the controversy.
The arbitration process is governed by mutual consent, allowing parties to appoint an arbitrator and seek interim relief under Sections 12(2) and 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court appointed a retired judge to arbitrate disputes between parties, allowing all issues to remain open for decision under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Parties are permitted to raise applications under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the Arbitral Tribunal once constituted.
The court ordered reference to arbitration between the parties due to mutual consent, affirming the arbitrator's authority to resolve all issues related to the dispute.
The court's decision was based on the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the appointment of the arbitrator was in accordance with the legal framework provided by the Act.
The court appointed an arbitrator to resolve disputes between parties, emphasizing adherence to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act procedures.
The court affirmed that parties can mutually consent to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, with obligations on the arbitrator to ensure expeditious resolution of disputes.
Parties may consent to an alternative arbitration method despite specified procedures in their agreement, thus allowing for flexibility in dispute resolution.
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
