Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
Subhash Chander – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction to appoint arbitrator under section 11(6) (Para 1) |
| 2. factual background and disputes regarding contract execution (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. respondent's challenge to petition and acceptance of arbitration (Para 5) |
| 4. appointment of sole arbitrator and fee regulations (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 5. conclusion of proceedings and order for arbitrator's information (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. As per the averments made in the present petition, petitioner is a construction contractor. Respondent had invited the tender for the work of "D/o main land including 60 Mtr. & 45 Mtr. Master Plan road in Dwarka project phase-II (D/o Sector-23B, 24, 25 & 26) Subhead: Providing and laying peripheral sewer line sector-25 Dwarka Phase-II. " The work was awarded to the petitioner through acceptance letter No. F31(1695)EE/WD 3/DDA/A/958 dated 09.11.2017 and agreement to the same effect was on 14.11.2017. Respondent is the custodian of the said agreement and as per the contract, the stipulated
The court applied the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint a sole arbitrator and ensure compliance before commencing the arbitration.
The court affirmed that when parties acknowledge disputes in a contractual agreement, an arbitrator must be appointed to resolve these disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to appoint an arbitrator to resolve disputed claims between parties in accordance with Section 11(6) of the Arbitration an....
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 ruled that a Sole Arbitrator is to be appointed to resolve disputes under the contract due to the respondent's failure to meet contractual obligations.
The court upheld the arbitrability of disputes arising from contractual obligations, appointing a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
A unilateral appointment of an arbitrator violates principles of unbiased dispute resolution. An arbitrator must be appointed consensually or by the court.
A party cannot unilaterally appoint an Arbitrator as it undermines unbiased dispute resolution; a collective agreement for a sole Arbitrator is essential.
The court confirmed the validity of invoking arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act when disputes arise over contract performance and payment.
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
