Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
MANEESH SHARMA
Sohan Bai, W/o. Late Shri Krishan Kumar Nagar – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India, Through General Manager – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute over invalid appointment of arbitrator. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments on jurisdiction and waiver of right. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's observations on procedural fairness. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. court establishes jurisdictional principles from precedents. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. final ruling appointing new arbitrator. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT :
MANEESH SHARMA, J.
1. The present Arbitration Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1996'), seeking appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute pending between the parties in relation to the operating of a Refreshment Trolley No. 2 at West Central Railway, Kota. The said trolley was licensed to sell fruits, sweets, tea, and other commodities in the name of the applicant’s late husband, Shri Krishan Kumar Nagar, who passed away on 03.11.2023.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present application are that after the demise of her husband, the applicant, Smt. Sohan Bai was not permitted to continue operations or transfer the trolley license in her name, despite the existence
Once a party initiates arbitration proceedings under Section 11(6), the opposing party's right to appoint an arbitrator ceases, making any subsequent appointment invalid.
The unilateral appointment of an arbitrator without engaging the other party and the applicability of statutory provisions and legal precedents in determining the legitimacy of the appointment.
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....
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.
The interpretation of Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is that where the mandate of an arbitrator terminates, a substitute arbitrator shall be appointed according to the ru....
Point of Law : S.13(2) provides that a party who intends to challenge appointment of an arbitrator shall, within fifteen days after becoming aware of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal or afte....
The right to appoint an arbitrator is not forfeited by serving notice for appointment; jurisdictional interventions can temporarily affect appointment rights, and the court's role is to ensure compli....
The court affirmed that an arbitration application under Section 11(6) was timely due to the COVID-19 limitation extension and upheld the validity of the arbitration mechanism despite amendments rend....
The referral court's scope under Section 11(6-A) is limited to the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement. A formal notice under Section 21 is not mandatory if the respondent has prior kno....
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
