Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
Third Wave Services – Appellant
Versus
Selene Constructions Limited – Respondent
1. The present petition has been filed by petitioner seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator under the provisions of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. Petitioner, a private limited company, claims to be registered under the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006, claims to be engaged in the diverse businesses pertaining to providing permanent Civil, electrical and Mechanical infrastructure.
3. According to petitioner, respondent No.1 is a public limited company engaged in real estate activities, who develops offices, housing, hotels and othr industrial projects. Respondent No.2 is also engaged in real estate development services.
4. Petitioner claims to have received a work order No. 3228105854 dated 12.07.2013 for work of internal electrical works of Building G1,2,3, K1,2,3, B & EWS at Centrum Park, Phase-ll, Gurgaon from respondent No.2 (as a sub-contractor) for a contractual amount of Rs.8,76,05,494.61/-, which was later enhanced to Rs.9,16,24,074.35/-. It is further claimed that the work was to commence on 01.07.2013 and the stipulated time for completion of work was 12 months i.e. till 30.06.2014.
Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is impermissible; parties must appoint an arbitrator jointly or seek court appointment to ensure unbiased dispute resolution.
The unilateral appointment of an arbitrator violates the principle of unbiased adjudication, requiring mutual agreement between parties for such appointments.
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 court has the authority to appoint a sole Arbitrator when disputes arise under an arbitration clause and the responding party does not object to the appointment.
Disputes arising from a construction contract for unpaid dues are arbitrable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, prompting the appointment of a sole arbitrator.
The court sanctioned the appointment of an Arbitrator despite procedural violations, highlighting the importance of adherence to statutory provisions while respecting the parties' agreements.
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 court's decision emphasizes the validity of invoking arbitration in accordance with the arbitration clause of the work order and the importance of compliance with Section 12 of the Arbitration an....
Court can appoint an arbitrator when both parties consent to arbitration for resolving disputes, even amidst contractual disagreements.
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.
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
