Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
Interglobe Technology Quotient Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Shree Sati Travels Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition filed under arbitration act. (Para 1) |
| 2. service of notice to the respondent. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. contractual obligations under subscriber agreement. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. failure to meet obligations and legal notices sent. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. dispute resolution clause for arbitration. (Para 9) |
| 6. no unilateral appointment of arbitrator. (Para 10) |
| 7. appointment and fee of sole arbitrator. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 11 (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of Arbitrator in view of the failure of respondent to give its consent for the appointment of sole arbitrator in terms of Clause 8 (i) of the Subscriber Agreement dated 01.04.2010 executed between the parties.
2. As per office report, notice sent to respondent through ordinary process has been received back with the report `unserved person is out of station" and service report for the process sent through courier and electronic modes is `awaited'. However, process sent through speed post has been received back with the report "refused".
3. An affidavit of service dated 24.12.2021 has been placed on
Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is impermissible; both parties must mutually consent to ensure impartiality in dispute resolution.
The importance of fulfilling necessary requisites for appointment of an arbitrator under the Arbitration Act and the spirit of the Act to make the resolution process accessible, easier, and more effi....
The court emphasized that the timeframe for appointing an arbitrator, as set in the agreement, is mandatory, and any deviation undermines the arbitration agreement's validity.
A sole arbitrator can be appointed by a party if the opposing party defaults on arbitrator appointment, per arbitration clause and judicial precedent.
The court asserted that an Arbitrator must be mutually appointed under contract terms to ensure unbiased resolution of disputes, rejecting unilateral appointments.
The court reinforced that unilateral appointment of an arbitrator contradicts arbitration laws, allowing a petition for appointing a Sole Arbitrator despite an ongoing moratorium under IBC.
Strict enforcement of arbitration agreement and the law does not permit either party to act as an arbitrator or appoint the arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes.
Unilateral appointment of an Arbitrator is not acceptable as it defeats the purpose of unbiased adjudication of disputes between the parties.
Unilateral appointment of an Arbitrator is not acceptable, and an Arbitrator must be appointed in accordance with the arbitration agreement and the provisions of the Standard Conditions of Supply Ord....
In the absence of opposition, a court may appoint an arbitrator based on deemed service through electronic means for resolving contractual disputes.
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
