Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
Benjamin Benjamin and Vats – Appellant
Versus
North Delhi Municipal Corporation – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the presence of an arbitration clause. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. dispute is acknowledged as arbitrable. (Para 4) |
| 3. consent to appoint an arbitrator. (Para 5) |
| 4. appointment and procedures for the arbitrator. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 5. disposal of petition and applications. (Para 9) |
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes with respondent.
2. Petitioner, a proprietorship concern, claims to be engaged in the business of providing services of Architects Engineers and Urban Planners. Petitioner claims to have been engaged by the respondent to render consultancy services for a project under which construction of 100 beds was to be done at Balak Ram Hospital at Timarpur. Though the employer of the said work was Public Works Department, however, the work was later transferred to the respondent. For this purpose, an Agreement dated 27.03.2003 was entered between the parties, which contained all the terms and conditions as well as details of various activities which were to be carried by the petitioner. The work was to commen
The court ruled that disputes under an arbitration agreement are arbitrable and can be resolved through appointed arbitrators, affirming the consent of both parties.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to appoint an independent arbitrator for adjudication of disputes based on the arbitration agreement.
Disputes arising under an agreement concerning construction are arbitrable, and a court may appoint an arbitrator as per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court's power to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the arbitrability of disputes under the agreement's Clause 25.
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 prohibited under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, reinforcing the need for unbiased adjudication as per the Supreme Court ruling.
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.
In the event of the demise of the sole Arbitrator, a new Arbitrator can be appointed to continue the arbitration proceedings in accordance with Sections 14 & 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Ac....
The necessity to appoint a new Arbitrator is confirmed under Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, recognizing the continuation of the arbitration process post-demise of the ori....
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
