Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
G.D. Builders – Appellant
Versus
KLJ Developers Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. A petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") has been filed for appointment of the Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
2. It is submitted in the petition that the respondent issued a Letter of Intent bearing reference No.KLJ/DP/FBD/LOI/2012-13/06 on 02.06.2012 for total contractual amount of Rs.2,09,55,000/-. The Work Order KLJ/DP/FBD/WO/2012-13/08 dated 10.06.2012 containing terms and conditions of the work was issued in favour of the petitioner Partnership Firm. The respondent also awarded the work of external development of "Platinum Floors" (Pocket-G)-Group Housing Project at Village Neemka, Sector-77, Faridabad (Haryana) vide Letter of Intent bearing ref. no. KLJ/DP/FBD/LOI/2012-13/07 on 02nd June, 2012 for total contractual amount of Rs.47,00,000/- to the petitioner. The period of contract for both the Works was nine months which was to commence from 15th June, 2012 and the date of completion was 14th March, 2013.
3. During the course of the execution of the work, the respondent made three amendments in the Agreement modifying the scope of work and the contractual amo
The court ruled that claims for arbitration were not patently barred by limitation, allowing the petition to proceed despite challenges on this ground.
Arbitration clauses must be honored, and disputes regarding limitation can be addressed by the arbitrator, reinforcing that claims raised by either party do not void the arbitration process.
Claims for arbitration may not be barred by limitation where disputes involve mixed questions of fact and law, and both parties may present defenses to the arbitrator.
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 ....
The court has the authority to appoint a sole Arbitrator when disputes arise under an arbitration clause and the responding party does not object to the appointment.
The court's decision emphasizes the validity of invoking arbitration in accordance with the arbitration clause of the work order and the importance of compliance with Section 12 of the Arbitration an....
Arbitration Agreement - Appointment of - The learned Arbitrator shall ensure compliance of Section 12 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before commencing the arbitration.
The court confirmed the validity of invoking arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act when disputes arise over contract performance and payment.
Court under Section 11(6) appoints arbitrator upon undisputed invocation of arbitration clause in contract, permitting respondents to raise limitation and merits objections before tribunal.
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
