Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
Swastik Pipe Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Jagpal Sharma – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeking appointment of arbitrator (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. lack of respondent's appearance (Para 3 , 5) |
| 3. awaiting service report (Para 4) |
| 4. appointment of arbitrator and fee structure (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 5. disposal of the petition and order transmission (Para 9 , 10) |
1. The present petition has been filed under Sections 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 company duly incorporated under the Company Act, 1956. Pursuant to business dealings and relations between the parties, respondent was purchasing ERW Precision Tubes and C.R. Strips from the petitioner on a running account basis. A total sum of Rs.29,34,170/- including @18% per annum from 01.04.2019 till 17.02.2020 was due against the goods already received by respondent. Thereafter, dispute arose between the parties. Petitioner sent a legal notice dated 27.02.2020 seeking Demand-cum-Appointment of Arbitrator, however, the same was returned to petitioner with the remarks "item returned as no such person in the address". Therefore, the pr
In the absence of opposition, a court may appoint an arbitrator based on deemed service through electronic means for resolving contractual disputes.
The court ruled that a party's failure to comply with a contractual agreement justifies the appointment of an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, validating service via multiple de....
The court's authority to appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
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 failure to provide proof of service for a notice under S. 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not divest the Court of its power under S. 11 to appoint an arbitrator when a valid arbit....
The court can appoint an Arbitrator when parties fail to mutually agree, as per agreement provisions and arbitration law.
The High Court has the power under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to appoint a sole arbitrator to resolve disputes where a valid arbitration agreement exists and the opp....
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.
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 ....
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
