Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
Sivanssh Infrastructure Development Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Army Welfare Housing Organization – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the arbitration case. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments against the arbitration appointment. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's reasoning on unilateral arbitrator appointment. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. final decision and appointment of arbitrator. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
1. The present petition has been filed by petitioner seeking appointment of Sole Arbitrator under the provisions of Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. Petitioner-company registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 claims to be engaged in construction related activities including construction of various industrial, institutional, commercial as well as residential projects in India. Respondent is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
3. According to petitioner, in December, 2015, respondent invited bids for development of a Residential Complex to be spread over an area of 3.57 acres (approx.) for construction of 220 dwelling units to be constructed in 5 Towers located at Sector-6A, Vrindavan Awas Yojna, Lucknow, to which petitioner had submitted its bid, which was accepted by the respondent vide
The unilateral appointment of an arbitrator violates the principle of unbiased adjudication, requiring mutual agreement between parties for such appointments.
Unilateral appointment of an Arbitrator by one party is void under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, reinforcing the need for impartial adjudication by the court.
: Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator defeats unbiased adjudication; when an arbitration clause does not provide for a panel of arbitrators, the task of appointing an arbitrator devolves on the C....
Whatever advantage a party may derive by nominating an arbitrator of its choice would get counter balanced by equal power with the other party. But, in a case where only one party has a right to appo....
The Managing Director cannot arbitrarily appoint an arbitrator if their interest affects impartiality; such appointments contravene Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act.
Point of Law : Whatever advantage a party may derive by nominating an arbitrator of its choice would get counter balanced by equal power with the other party. But, in a case where only one party has ....
Disputes arising from a construction contract for unpaid dues are arbitrable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, prompting the appointment of a sole arbitrator.
Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is impermissible; parties must appoint an arbitrator jointly or seek court appointment to ensure unbiased dispute resolution.
Arbitrator - Appointment procedure - In cases where one party has a right to appoint a sole arbitrator, its choice will always have an element of exclusivity in determining or charting course for dis....
Unilateral appointment of arbitrator and ex parte arbitration proceedings are void and can be ignored. Appointment of arbitrator must be based on consensus between the parties or by the court under S....
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
