Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
SUDESH BANSAL
M/s Chand Filling Station – Appellant
Versus
M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. – Respondent
ORDER :
SUDESH BANSAL, J.
1. Heard counsel for both parties and perused the material placed on record.
2. This is an arbitration application, filed by and on behalf of applicant under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter for short "the A&C Act"), seeking appointment of a sole Arbitrator in terms of Clause 68, enumerated in the dealership agreement.
For ready reference, Clause 68 is being reproduced hereunder:-
"68. Any Dispute Or Difference Of Any Nature Whatsoever Or Regarding Any Right, Liability, Act, Omission Or Account Of Any Of The Parties Hereto Arising Out Of Or In Relation To This Agreement Shall Be Referred To The Sole Arbitration Of The Managing Director Of The Corporation Or Of Some Officer Of The Corporation Who May Be Nominated By The Managing Director. The Dealer Will Not Be Entitled To Raise Any Objection To Any Such Arbitrator On The Ground That The Arbitrator Is An Officer Of The Corporation Or That He Has To Deal With The Matters To Which The Contract Relates Or That In The Course Of Outics As An Officer Of The Corporation He Had Expressed Views On All Or Any Of The Matters In Dispute Or Difference. In The Even Of The Arbitration To Wh
The existence of a dispute under the dealership agreement justifies the appointment of an arbitrator, even without a termination order being issued.
The court affirmed that failure to adhere to the dispute resolution procedure allows a party to invoke arbitration directly, emphasizing the importance of timely actions in contractual disputes.
Parties must adhere to agreed arbitration procedures; failure to do so precludes judicial appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the arbitrability of disputes arising from a dealership agreement and the nature of relief that can be granted in arbitration, as governed by the A....
The court affirmed that distinct disputes can be arbitrated even after a prior award, emphasizing the principle of competence-competence which allows the Tribunal to resolve its jurisdictional issues....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an application filed under Section 11(6)(C) of the Act, 1996 is barred by limitation if filed after a delay of more than the period of three y....
The main legal point established is that lack of consensus ad idem on the arbitration procedure can justify court appointment of an arbitrator, and previous adjudication does not necessarily bar arbi....
The words 'Arbitral Tribunal' in Section 9(3) of Act have to take colour from all said provisions and thus have to be interpreted as Arbitral Tribunal constituted to adjudicate disputes which have ar....
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
