Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
Srico Projects Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Central Railside Warehouse Co. Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. The present Petition is preferred by the petitioner under Section 11 (5) r/w Section (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of sole Arbitrator in terms of Clause-25 of Clauses of Contract of the Agreement dated 16.11.2017 executed with respondent.
2. Petitioner-M/s SRICO Projects Pvt. Ltd. is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and with MSME and respondent-Central Railside Warehouse Co. Ltd., an Enterprise of the Government of India, is also a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956.
3. According to petitioner, it has participated in the tender process issued by the respondent on 05.05.2017 for construction of 20400 MTC Warehouse along with ancillaries, internal roads, and electrical installation with temperature control facility at Fatuha, Bihar, at an estimated cost of Rs.12,91,46,503.19/- and was awarded the said work at an estimate cost of Rs.22,08,40,520.45/- and for this purpose, an Agreement was executed at New Delhi on 16.11.2017. In terms of the contract, petitioner was required to furnish a security deposit of 5% of the tendered value in terms of Clause 15(i) and performance security/guarantee of 5%
The Managing Director cannot arbitrarily appoint an arbitrator if their interest affects impartiality; such appointments contravene Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act.
Point of Law : Whatever advantage a party may derive by nominating an arbitrator of its choice would get counter balanced by equal power with the other party. But, in a case where only one party has ....
Whatever advantage a party may derive by nominating an arbitrator of its choice would get counter balanced by equal power with the other party. But, in a case where only one party has a right to appo....
The unilateral appointment of an arbitrator violates the principle of unbiased adjudication, requiring mutual agreement between parties for such appointments.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of ensuring the independence and impartiality of arbitrators in the appointment process, as emphasized in relevant decisions of the ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the unilateral appointment of an Arbitrator by a party with an interest in the matter is impermissible, as it could compromise the impartialit....
Unilateral appointment of an Arbitrator by a party is impermissible, and the ineligibility of the Arbitrator under Section 12(5) of the A&C Act is a valid ground for challenging the appointment.
Point of law: As per the legal position settled by the Supreme Court in catena of judgments, the High Court has the jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the said Act to nullify the appointments made b....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of an Arbitrator must comply with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the choice of the Arbitrator must not ha....
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
