Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
AEE Engineeers and Contactors – Appellant
Versus
Ignou – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual basis for arbitration proceedings (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. invocation of arbitration clause (Para 4) |
| 3. absence of respondent indicates lack of opposition (Para 5) |
| 4. appointment of arbitrator and fee schedule (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 5. disposal and forwarding of order (Para 9 , 10) |
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes inter se the parties.
2. Petitioner No.1 is the proprietorship firm of petitioner No.2 and is engaged in the business of supply and maintenance of electrical jobs etc.
3. As per the averments made in the present petition, respondent awarded the work of operation of 5 Electric Sub-Station Equipment installed in ESS-1 2, 4, 5 & 10 at IGNOU Campus, Maidan Garhi, New Delhi vide letter for commencement No.IG/CMD/EE/2015-16/1552 dated 18.11.2015 after conveying acceptance of his quotation vide letter No.IG/CMD/EE(E)/2015-16/1549 dated 17.11.2015. Subsequently, Agreement No.IG/CMD/EE(E)/WO/2015-16 dated 19.11.2015 was executed between the parties. Contract was further extended several times, However, when petit
Non-compliance by a party allows the court to appoint a sole Arbitrator under the Arbitration Act when arbitration notices are ignored.
The court's decision highlights the importance of honoring arbitration clauses in agreements and the appointment of arbitrators to resolve disputes.
Court can appoint an arbitrator when both parties consent to arbitration for resolving disputes, even amidst contractual disagreements.
The court can appoint an Arbitrator when parties fail to mutually agree, as per agreement provisions and arbitration law.
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.
The court's decision emphasized the appointment of a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court's decision emphasized the importance of consent and lack of objection from both parties in appointing a sole arbitrator.
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,....
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
