Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
CG Tollway Limited – Appellant
Versus
National Highway Authority of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of petitioners and nature of case. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of awarded projects and agreements. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. financial obligations and force majeure claims. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. dispute resolution mechanism in agreements. (Para 9) |
| 5. background judgments and procedural history. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. petitioners' concerns regarding impartiality in arbitration. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 7. respondents' defense regarding arbitration procedures. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 8. petitioners' rebuttal and further arguments. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 9. court's observations on maintainability of arbitration petitions. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 10. legal framework under section 11(6) of arbitration act. (Para 25 , 26 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 11. court's final decision on arbitration petitions. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
JUDGMENT
1. Petitioners in the above captioned three petitions are companies incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and are subsidiary of M/s IRB Infrastructure Developers Limited, who claims to be the largest infrastructure developers in India with vast experience in construction, operation & maintenance of highway projects. Respondent is a statutory body cons
Parties must adhere to arbitration agreements, and judicial intervention is permitted only if arbitration procedures are exhausted; allegations of bias against SAROD were not substantiated.
Under Section 11(6) of the Act seeking appointment of sole Arbitrator are not maintainable and are hereby dismissed, while directing the parties to nominate one Arbitrator each from the panel of SARO....
Parties to arbitration agreements must nominate arbitrators from a broad-based panel, ensuring independence and neutrality, while upholding party autonomy as per the SAROD Rules.
The court affirmed that the claimant must secure the necessary Airport Entry Permits and upheld the arbitration award, ruling no breach by the respondent; consent regarding the arbitrator's appointme....
The appointment of an arbitrator under the National Highways Act by a constitutional authority does not invoke inherent bias, affirming the independence of the arbitration process and the efficacy of....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of the appointment of the District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner as the Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, ....
Parties to an arbitration agreement must comply with institutional rules regarding the selection of arbitrators, necessitating appointments from the designated panel to maintain procedural integrity.
The court reinforced that impartiality and independence of arbitrators is essential, disqualifying those with vested interests under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
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
