Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
Swastik Pipe Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Avon Industries – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction for arbitration appointed by the court. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's insistence on arbitral resolution. (Para 3) |
| 3. evidence of service to respondent noted. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. appointment of arbitrator and fee structure. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. disposition of petition. (Para 10) |
1. The present petition has been filed under the provisions of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator.
2. The averments made in the present petition are that respondent had purchased HRPO Sheets, C.R. Sheets, C.R. Strips from the petitioner and in pursuance to said business dealing, for the period between 01.04.2018 till 04.12.2019, a total amount of Rs.15,72,850/- including interest @18% per annum till 04.12.2019 for the delayed payments, is due towards respondent. According to petitioner, a legal notice dated 23.12.2019 was sent to the respondent invoking arbitration and for appointment of Arbitrator in terms contained in the Purchase Orders-cum-Tax Invoices, however, since respondent did not reply to the aforesaid legal notice, the present petition is filed.
3. During the course of hearing, learned cou
The court granted the petition for arbitration appointment, emphasizing the respondent's refusal to engage and affirming jurisdiction based on the terms in the invoice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, when the respondent deliberately ....
In the absence of opposition, a court may appoint an arbitrator based on deemed service through electronic means for resolving contractual disputes.
The court asserted that an Arbitrator must be mutually appointed under contract terms to ensure unbiased resolution of disputes, rejecting unilateral appointments.
The court affirmed the need for compliance with contractually agreed arbitration clauses, appointing an arbitrator when parties fail to cooperate.
Disputes under contracts with the Union of India are arbitrable, and the appointment of an independent arbitrator is necessary for their resolution under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Concilia....
Unilateral appointment of an Arbitrator is not acceptable as it defeats the purpose of unbiased adjudication of disputes between the parties.
The court's decision was based on the deliberate non-appearance of the respondents and the petitioners' compliance with the legal requirements for appointment of a sole arbitrator.
The court's authority to appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to proceed ex-parte and appoint an arbitrator when the respondent consistently fails to appear despite service of notice, and....
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
