Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
G.D. Builders – Appellant
Versus
KLJ Developers Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for appointment of arbitrator and contract details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. respondent challenges petition on limitation grounds. (Para 8) |
| 3. court permits both parties to raise all rights before arbitrator. (Para 9 , 11) |
| 4. supreme court ruling on limitation and its application. (Para 10) |
| 5. appointment of arbitrator and arbitration directions. (Para 12 , 13) |
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.
2. It is submitted in the petition that respondent sister concern M/s KLJ Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. had invited tender for "Residential Group Housing Project at Sector-77, KLJ Greens, Village Neemka, Faridabad, Haryana". The petitioner was declared as successful bidder. Respondent had issued a letter of intent bearing ref.no. KLJ/TP/FBD/2007-08/04 dated 09th January 2008 on total contractual amount of Rs.27,95,05,150/-. The fresh work order no. KLJ/TP/FBD/2007-08/05 dated 15th February, 2008 was issued by the respondent to the petitioner which contains the terms and conditions oi this work. As per Clause 7 of the Wor
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 ruled that claims for arbitration were not patently barred by limitation, allowing the petition to proceed despite challenges on this ground.
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 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 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 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.
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.
Disputes concerning contract completion and payment arise, necessitating arbitration as per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
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.
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
