Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
C.HARI SHANKAR
Sarens Heavy Lift India Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Gammon-Construtora Cidade-Tensacciai JV – Respondent
ARB.P. 760/2021 and O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 279/2021
1. Learned Counsel for the respondent does not oppose reference of the disputes between the parties to arbitration and suggests that OMP (I) (Comm) 279/2021 could be referred to the learned arbitrator to be decided as an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. The prayer in OMP (I) (Comm) 279/2021 reads thus:
"In view of the facts and circumstances explained above, the Petitioner herein most humbly and respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may [be] pleased to:
a. Direct the Respondent to furnish adequate security in the form of Bank Guarantee issued by a Nationalized Bank in India or such other security as this Hon'ble Court deems fit that cover the entire amount of Rs.2,23,62,907/-; and/or
b. Alternatively, direct the Respondent to deposit with this Hon'ble Court an amount of Rs.2,23,62,907/- by way of interest-bearing Fixed Deposit until conclusion of arbitration proceedings; and/or
c. Pass any other or further Order (s) as this Hon'ble Court deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. As the prayers of the petitioner do not seek any injunction, but merely se
The court affirmed that disputes should be referred to arbitration under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, allowing for adequate security during the proceedings.
Parties may appoint an arbitrator by mutual agreement, leading to dispute resolution under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing the need for adherence to due process.
Disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act can be referred to arbitration with both parties' agreement, confirming the maintainability of applications before the arbitrator.
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.
The court affirmed that arbitration agreements and interim procedures must adhere to the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, highlighting the importance of party consent in reso....
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 agreed to refer disputes to arbitration under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; interim directions remain operational until arbitrator's decision.
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.
Disputes may be referred to arbitration even when parties disagree on the identity of the arbitrator; allegations in arbitration petitions are irrelevant to the court's decision on referral.
The court permitted a petition to be treated as an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to be decided by the arbitrator.
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
