SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.
Balaji Constructions - Appellant
Versus
Shivani Dudani - Respondent
Arb.P. 1008 of 2021
Decided On : 26-10-2021




The court ruled that appointment of a Sole Arbitrator is warranted when parties are unable to reach consensus despite attempts for amicable resolution under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11(6) and Section 9 - Petition for appointment of Sole Arbitrator for disputes arising from an agreement dated 15.06.2019 - Respondents disputed claims but did not contest the existence of the agreement or the invocation of arbitration - Court appointed a Sole Arbitrator after the failure of parties to reach a consensus. (Paras 1, 3, 5, 6)

(B) Arbitration - Dispute resolution process - Attempts at amicable resolution were made, and legal notice proposing the name of Sole Arbitrator was sent after further disputes arose. (Paras 3, 4)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a registered partnership, entered into an agreement for property development with the respondents, who resiled from the agreement citing frivolous issues. Attempts to resolve the disputes amicably failed, prompting the present petition seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator.

Findings of Court:
The court accepted the petition and appointed Mr. Justice (Retd.) Manmohan Singh as Sole Arbitrator.

Issues: The primary issue was the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator given the parties' inability to agree upon one following a disputed agreement.

Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that existence of an agreement and failure to resolve disputes amicably justified the need for appointing a Sole Arbitrator to facilitate adjudication.

Result: Petition allowed; Sole Arbitrator appointed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's request for arbitration (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. disputes over arbitration terms (Para 4 , 5)
3. appointment of arbitrator (Para 6 , 7)
4. order and disposal of petition (Para 8 , 9)

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed by petitioner seeking appointment of Sole Arbitrator under the provisions of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

2. The Petitioner is a registered partnership and the respondents were the owners of a free hold plot of land bearing No. 7 on Road No. A-23 measuring 420 sq. Mtrs (502.32 sq. Yds. Approx.) situated in the residential colony, DLF City Phase-I, Gurugram, Haryana.

3. The petitioner entered into an Agreement on 15.06.2019 with the respondents for development and construction of property bearing No. A23/7, DLF City Phase-I, Gurugram, Haryana. However, according to petitioner, the respondents backed out/resiled from performing their part of the said agreement by raising frivolous issues and since the efforts to amicably resolve the disputes arose between the parties, the petitioner approached this Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [O.M.P (I) (COMM.) No. 221/2021], which was disposed of vide judgment/order dated order/judgment dated 28.07.2021. Thereafter, petitioner claims to have made another effort for resolution of disputes, however, upon its failure, petitioner sent a legal notice through its counsel dated 13.08.2021 to the respondents proposing the name of sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. The respondents instead of accepting the name of proposed Sole Arbitrator, suggested the names of three Arbitrators vide their reply dated 28.08.2021.

4. Since parties have not been able to reach at a consensus, learned counsel for petitioner has therefore insisted upon for appointment of sole Arbitrator by this Court.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent has disputed the claims raised on behalf of petitioner, however, existence of Agreement dated 15.06.2019 and invocation of arbitration is not disputed.

6. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and Mr. Justice (Retd.) Manmohan Singh is appointed sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

7. The fees of the learned Arbitrator shall be according to Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

8. With aforesaid directions, the present petition is accordingly disposed of.

9. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Arbitrator for information.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top