Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
Evam Constructions Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Wei Grow Hotel Concepts Pvt. Ltd. Kylin – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. arbitration disputes and process initiation (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. defendant's non-appearance and petition context (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. arbitral appointment and authority issues (Para 7) |
| 4. appointment of arbitrator and procedural closure (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes with the respondents.
2. At the outset, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that defendants No.2 & 3 are proforma parties and the present petition is pressed against defendant No.1 only.
3. As per office report, defendant No.1 is served through ordinary process, however, none has appeared its behalf. It seems respondent No.1 has nothing to oppose in the present petition.
4. Petitioner claims to be a Contractor, who has implemented civil and interior related works at Kylin Restaurant, 309 Ambience Mall, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, i.e. the premises of respondent in terms of Work Order dated 10.08.2018.
5. According to petitioner, pursuant to the aforesaid Work Order dated 10.08.2018, petitioner commenced
No single party can be permitted to unilaterally appoint the Arbitrator, as it would defeat the purpose of unbiased adjudication of dispute between parties.
Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is impermissible; parties must appoint an arbitrator jointly or seek court appointment to ensure unbiased dispute resolution.
The court sanctioned the appointment of an Arbitrator despite procedural violations, highlighting the importance of adherence to statutory provisions while respecting the parties' agreements.
Arbitrator - Appointment procedure - In cases where one party has a right to appoint a sole arbitrator, its choice will always have an element of exclusivity in determining or charting course for dis....
The court ruled that disputes under an arbitration agreement are arbitrable and can be resolved through appointed arbitrators, affirming the consent of both parties.
Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator violates impartiality; appointment must comply with arbitration agreements and allow equal rights for both parties.
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 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 authority to appoint an arbitrator in cases where the parties are unable to agree, in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the provisions of the Arbitration & Concil....
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....
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
