Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
Sap Electro Contracts (Pvt.) Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Reiyukai – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. contractual terms and obligations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. dispute resolution and arbitration process. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. consent to arbitration established. (Para 6) |
| 4. appointment and fee of arbitrator. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. disposal of petition. (Para 10) |
The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes inter-se the parties.
2. According to petitioner, respondent was awarded the work order for Internal Electrical Works for Institutional Religious Building "Eternal Oasis" for total amount of Rs.82,60,000/- inclusive of all taxes e.g. Labour Cess, WCT & GST as applicable on the basis of Schedule of Rates enclosed with the work order for supply, installation, testing and commissioning of Internal Electrical Works at the project site and a Contract Agreement was signed with all terms and conditions including BOQ. Petitioner claims to have started the said work according to the specification as per BOQ and satisfaction of respondent's consulting Engineers/Project Managers and thereaft
Court can appoint an arbitrator when both parties consent to arbitration for resolving disputes, even amidst contractual disagreements.
Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is impermissible; parties must appoint an arbitrator jointly or seek court appointment to ensure unbiased dispute resolution.
Non-compliance by a party allows the court to appoint a sole Arbitrator under the Arbitration Act when arbitration notices are ignored.
The court's decision to appoint a new sole Arbitrator underlines the importance of continued arbitration proceedings and addressing counterclaims in compliance with statutory provisions.
The court directed the appointment of a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to resolve contract disputes, affirming the arbitrability of the issues.
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.
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 court confirmed the validity of invoking arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act when disputes arise over contract performance and payment.
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
