Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
YFC Projects Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Ramprastha Promoters and Developers Private Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. seeking arbitration for unpaid dues. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. discharge of contract due to disputes. (Para 3) |
| 3. disputes are arbitrable, seek sole arbitrator. (Para 4) |
| 4. appointment of substitute arbitrator and arbitration rules. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 5. disposal of the petition and applications. (Para 8) |
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of sole Arbitrator.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is a company and is engaged in business of construction and other development activities. Respondent is a non-government company and is a real estate developer running its business operation in NCR region. Respondent during year 2010 obtained licence bearing No.40 of 2010 for development of group housing society admeasuring 24.53 acres in sector 95 (in short `Project'). Further, respondent informed the petitioner that it had sold the FSI of the Project to the Army Welfare Housing Organization (AWHO). As per the terms and conditions entered between the AWHO and respondent, the development rights were given to the respondent for construction o
Disputes arising from a construction contract for unpaid dues are arbitrable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, prompting the appointment of a sole arbitrator.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate the disputes between the parti....
The unilateral appointment of an arbitrator violates the principle of unbiased adjudication, requiring mutual agreement between parties for such appointments.
Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is impermissible; parties must appoint an arbitrator jointly or seek court appointment to ensure unbiased dispute resolution.
The court has the authority to appoint a sole Arbitrator in accordance with the Arbitration Clause forming a part of the Contract.
The court affirmed that a party can seek arbitration if the other party fails to appoint an arbitrator and acknowledged the disputes existing between them.
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 non-contestation of an Arbitration Agreement obligation permits the court to appoint a sole Arbitrator when both parties consent.
The court ruled that a Sole Arbitrator is to be appointed to resolve disputes under the contract due to the respondent's failure to meet contractual obligations.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to appoint an arbitrator to resolve disputed claims between parties in accordance with Section 11(6) of the Arbitration an....
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
