Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
K.B.G. Engineers – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. respondent's procedural objections to arbitration. (Para 6 , 10) |
| 3. court's reasoning on validity of arbitration claims. (Para 8 , 9 , 11) |
| 4. appointment of arbitrator and conclusion. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT
Neena Bansal Krishna, J. (Oral)--The present petition under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as `The Act') has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for appointment of an Arbitrator.
2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner is a registered partnership firm and is doing the work of construction in Government and private department since long time. The petitioner was declared successful participant in the Tender published for the execution of the work of "upgradation/Construction of Sub-Registrar Office at DC(South East) Office Complex Gargi College, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, SH: Civil work i/c Furniture, Electric and HVAC Work". After completion of all the formalities, Acceptance Letter bearing no. DTTDC/Engg./I(196)/EE(PB-III)/2405 dated 30.07.2014 was awarded to the petitioner.
3. The performance guarantee in terms of the Letter of Acceptan
The court ruled that jurisdiction under Section 11(6A) is limited to assessing the existence and validity of arbitration agreements, with unresolved factual disputes requiring arbitration.
The court upheld the validity of the arbitration agreement and recognized the petitioner’s adherence to the procedural requirements for arbitration, irrespective of the respondent's claims regarding ....
An arbitration agreement is enforceable despite claims of payment completion, recognizing the agency relationship between parties, allowing disputes to be resolved through arbitration.
Point of Law : Arbitrator making the necessary disclosure as required under Section 12(1) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act.
The court established that an arbitration agreement exists between the petitioner and the respondents, as the executing agency was acting on behalf of the principal; claims related to payment dispute....
The appointment of an arbitrator is warranted when a valid arbitration clause exists and the opposing party does not object, ensuring prompt resolution of contractual disputes.
The court affirmed that when parties acknowledge disputes in a contractual agreement, an arbitrator must be appointed to resolve these disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11(6) requires prima facie consideration of the Arbitration Agreement's existence, not an in-depth examination of disputes, which should be resolved by ....
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....
The court upheld the arbitrability of disputes arising from contractual obligations, appointing a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
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
