Back
VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Shiv Shakti Builders – Appellant
Versus
Divisional Railway Engineer (west), North Western Railway, Jodhpur – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present application has been preferred under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of the Arbitrator in the present case.
3. Brief facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner entered into a contract with the Railways for performing the certain works. On a dispute being arisen between the parties, the applicant served a notice dated 15.03.2018 to the Divisional Railway Engineer (West), North Western Railway, Jodhpur for appointment of the Arbitrator which is placed on record as (Annex. R/2). When the Divisional Railway Engineer (West), North Western Railway, Jodhpur failed to appoint the Arbitrator, the applicant preferred an application being S.B. Arbitration Application No. 11/2018 before this Court. This court vide judgment dated 23.10.2018 disposed of the said application in the following terms:-
"In view of the above discussion, the applicant having failed to comply with the necessary pre-requisite conditions for invoking provisions of Section 11(6) of the Act, the application is not maintainable and, consequently, the same is dismissed leav
The court clarified that a previous dismissal of an application for appointment of an Arbitrator does not preclude the applicant from seeking appointment through the correct authority, and hypertechn....
The appointment of the arbitrator must be in accordance with the arbitration agreement and must satisfy the provisions of the arbitration act.
An application for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is maintainable despite previous delays, as no arbitral proceedings were initiated un....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that parties may waive the applicability of Section 12 (5) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 by their conduct, and the appointment of an ....
Failure to appoint an arbitrator within the stipulated time results in the loss of the right to make the appointment. Appointment of an arbitrator by an ineligible person is void ab initio.
The limitation period for seeking the appointment of an arbitrator begins only after a valid notice invoking arbitration is issued, and failure to appoint forfeits the right to do so.
The court emphasizes that failure to comply with the arbitration clause entitles the petitioner to seek judicial appointment of an arbitrator.
Strict enforcement of arbitration agreement and the law does not permit either party to act as an arbitrator or appoint the arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes.
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
