Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
GBK Project Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks arbitration for contract termination issues. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioner claims significant financial compensation. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court confirms arbitration is necessary and addresses arbitration clause. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. court appoints arbitrator and concludes the petition. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
1. By Way of present petition, petitioner is seeking appointment of an independent Arbitrator under the provisions of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Section 151 CPC.
2. Petitioner-company claims to be involved in the business of construction and Railway contracts, who vide acceptance letter dated 26.09.2016 of respondent was awarded work pertaining to "Balance work of quarters at Asoati Faridabad, construction of station building, power cabin, RRI and other station building, extension of platforms, retaining wall, development of circulating area, drainage arrangements in yards and other allied works at different location in between AST and Jn cabin TKD in C/W 4th line" for Rs.12,64,61,022.97 (Rupees Twelve Crore Sixty Four Lac Sixty One Thousand Twenty Two and Ninety Seven Paise only). The
No single party can be permitted to unilaterally appoint the Arbitrator, as it would defeat the purpose of unbiased adjudication of dispute between parties.
The main legal point established is the necessity of appointing an independent arbitrator to resolve disputes, in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and rele....
The court affirmed that arbitration proceedings should be initiated to resolve disputes, even if a no-claim certificate is invoked, unless the claims are manifestly devoid of merit.
The court ruled that a Sole Arbitrator is to be appointed to resolve disputes under the contract due to the respondent's failure to meet contractual obligations.
The court affirmed that when parties acknowledge disputes in a contractual agreement, an arbitrator must be appointed to resolve these disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court upheld the arbitrability of disputes arising from contractual obligations, appointing a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Appointment of a sole arbitrator must comply with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and should not be in violation of relevant legal precedents.
The non-contestation of an Arbitration Agreement obligation permits the court to appoint a sole Arbitrator when both parties consent.
The court has the authority to appoint a sole Arbitrator in accordance with the Arbitration Clause forming a part of the Contract.
The unilateral appointment of an arbitrator violates the principle of unbiased adjudication, requiring mutual agreement between parties for such appointments.
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
