Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
RG Icon, Plumbing and Firefighting Contractors – Appellant
Versus
BPTP Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks arbitration due to delays. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. no objections to arbitrator appointment. (Para 4) |
| 3. arbitrator appointed and arbitration process finalized. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
1. The present petition has been filed under Sections 11 (5) & 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes with respondent.
2. As per the averments made by petitioner, petitioner is a partnership firm dealing in Firefighting and Plumbing contracts. Petitioner was awarded work contract by the respondent for plumbing sanitary fixtures and fitting for the project known as Park Elite Premium, Sector-84, Faridabad, Haryana vide Work Order No.BPTP/Parkland/PEP/S84/17/WO-69 dt 23.05.2017 for contract value of Rs.1,84,54,537/-. The work order was amended number of times as to contract value and lastly by the letter of the respondent dated 20.08.2020 and its value was reduced from Rs.1,84,54,537/- finally to Rs.1,22,71,221/-. The work under the original Work Order was to be completed within a period of nine months. Petitioner with an intention to timely complete the work gathered its equ
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.
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....
The court upheld the arbitrability of disputes arising from contractual obligations, appointing a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is impermissible; parties must appoint an arbitrator jointly or seek court appointment to ensure unbiased dispute resolution.
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 sanctioned the appointment of an Arbitrator despite procedural violations, highlighting the importance of adherence to statutory provisions while respecting the parties' agreements.
The court's decision emphasized the appointment of a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
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 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 appointed a sole arbitrator to resolve contractual disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, affirming the parties' mutual agreement for arbitration.
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
