Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
Modi-Mundipharma Beauty Products Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
S.M. Enterprises – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts surrounding the dispute and relationship between parties. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding breach of mou and arbitration requests. (Para 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. court's observations on procedural objections. (Para 7) |
| 4. appointment of arbitrator and governance of fees. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. conclusion of the petition and order for arbitration. (Para 12 , 13) |
The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
2. Pertinently, petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of marketing, selling of cosmetic and personal care products.
3. According to the petitioner, respondent no.1 is a proprietorship firm and engaged in the business of trading of cosmetic products and running and managing the sale of various products. Respondent no.2 is the sole proprietor of respondent no.1.
4. It is averred that petitioner executed a Memorandum of Understanding with the respondents on
The court confirmed the right to appoint an arbitrator due to the respondent's non-compliance with the terms of the agreement, affirming that the disputes were arbitrable.
The court's decision emphasized the arbitrability of the disputes and the appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(5) of the arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996.
The court can appoint an Arbitrator when parties fail to mutually agree, as per agreement provisions and arbitration law.
The presence of an arbitration clause in an agreement, the arbitrability of disputes, and the fulfillment of necessary requisites under the Arbitration Act influence the court's decision to appoint a....
The main legal point established is the court's authority to appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996 when the parties fail to mutually appoint one,....
The court's authority to appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court affirmed the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for disputes arising from an uncontested License Agreement.
The court emphasized the unbiased adjudication of disputes between the parties and rejected the contention of the petitioners to appoint an arbitrator of their choice, in line with the legal principl....
Court can appoint a Sole Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with mutual consent of the parties for efficient dispute resolution.
The court appointed an arbitrator as the parties consented to arbitration under the existing arbitration clause, complying with statutory requirements.
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
