Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Harcharan Dass Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Hindustan Pre-fab Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual basis of contract and payments. (Para 2) |
| 2. parties dispute and procedural failure. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. court's analysis of arbitration and agency. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. ruling on the petition. (Para 21) |
| 5. appointment of arbitrator and order. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
JUDGMENT
Neena Bansal Krishna, J. (Oral)--The present petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as `A&C Act, 1996') for appointment of arbitrator by the petitioner.
2. The petitioner was awarded a work regarding construction of Police Post and Dog Kennels at Sector 3, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi vide Letter No. HPL/DGM(C)/TC/LOI/2014-15/162 dated 14th January, 2015. According to the stipulated terms, the date of start of work was 10th May, 2015 and was to be completed by 09th June, 2016 i.e., within a period of thirteen months. The work, however, got completed on 12th December, 2016. The final bill as raised by the petitioner was not paid by the respondent No.1. It is asserted that a sum of Rs.3,01,72,704/- by way of Pre-Final bill of the undisputed items is due to the
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....
An arbitration agreement is enforceable despite claims of payment completion, recognizing the agency relationship between parties, allowing disputes to be resolved through arbitration.
The main legal point established is that a party to a contract cannot absolve its liabilities and must comply with dispute resolution clauses, and claims must be within the period of limitation.
An arbitration agreement remains valid and enforceable despite procedural limitations on arbitrator appointment, ensuring disputes are addressed effectively.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner's failure to exhaust the mandatory dispute resolution procedure as per the contract rendered the petition premature and non-mai....
As per Section 11 (13) of the Act now arbitration is required to be decided within 30 days.
Disputes concerning alleged payments are referable to arbitration despite claims of prior resolution efforts, where the existence of disputes was upheld.
Point of law: As per the legal position settled by the Supreme Court in catena of judgments, the High Court has the jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the said Act to nullify the appointments made b....
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
