Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
M.P. Tyagi Engineers and Contractors – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for appointment of arbitrator. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. disputes arose after completion of work. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. parties consent to appoint arbitrator. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. arbitrator appointed by consent. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. petition disposed of; order for arbitrator. (Para 12 , 13) |
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of sole Arbitrator in terms of Arbitration Clause 70 of IAFW 2249 forming the part of contract entered between the parties.
2. Petitioner herein is a contractor, who claims to have been engaged by the respondents, respondent No.1-Union of India and respondent No.2,3 & 4 subordinates of respondent No.1, on several occasions for carrying out various constructions and other activities.
3. The basis of present petition rests upon Arbitration Clause 70 of IAFW 2249 forming the part of contract entered between the Parties, which was entered into pertaining to a work order bearing No. CEWAC/GUR/26/20 17-18 to the tune of sum of Rs.3,02,26,089.80/- pursuant to acceptance letter dated 21.09.2017 against a tender for the work CA NO. CEWAC/GUR/T-52/
The court confirmed that consent of both parties for the appointment of an arbitrator fulfills the requirements under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, enabling dispute resolutio....
No party can unilaterally appoint an arbitrator; appointment requires either mutual consent or judicial appointment to ensure impartiality.
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....
The court's decision was based on the existence of the Arbitration Agreement and the non-dispute by the respondent of the referability of disputes to arbitration.
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.
Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator violates impartiality; appointment must comply with arbitration agreements and allow equal rights for both parties.
The court sanctioned the appointment of an Arbitrator despite procedural violations, highlighting the importance of adherence to statutory provisions while respecting the parties' agreements.
The court affirmed that the disputes between the parties were arbitral in nature and appointed a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court affirmed that arbitration proceedings should be initiated to resolve disputes, even if a no-claim certificate is invoked, unless the claims are manifestly devoid of merit.
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
