Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
KGL Infrastructures – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute arose from contract execution delays. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioner seeks arbitration appointment. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. arbitrator appointed under arbitration act. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. court order for arbitration conclusion. (Para 10 , 11) |
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of Arbitrator on behalf of respondent to adjudicate the disputes with respondent. Pertinently, petitioner is a partnership firm and is engaged in the business of construction and undertakes railway contracts.
2. According to petitioner, it was awarded work for providing of limited height sub way in place of U/M L-xing no.35 at km. 38/4-4, 37 at km.40/4-5 and 39 at km. 41/5-6 under railway track between KEX-BTU section on DSA-SMQL section under ADEN/SMQL vide acceptance letter dated 30.05.2017 for Rs.4,73,51,203/- and stipulated date of completion of work was 6 months i.e. 30.11.2017. All arrangements were made for execution of work but due to late sanctioning of block for placing of pre-casted RCC boxes, substantial increase in the scope of work, late decisions, increase in cost, non-a
The court upheld the arbitrability of disputes arising from contractual obligations, appointing a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
The court's decision emphasized the appointment of a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The main legal point established is the arbitrability of disputes under the construction contract and the court's authority to appoint a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19....
Disputes concerning contract completion and payment arise, necessitating arbitration as per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
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 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 court confirmed the validity of invoking arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act when disputes arise over contract performance and payment.
A unilateral appointment of an arbitrator violates principles of unbiased dispute resolution. An arbitrator must be appointed consensually or by the court.
The court applied the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint a sole arbitrator and ensure compliance before commencing the 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
