Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
ARUN PALLI
Abdul Qayoom Dar – Appellant
Versus
Chief Engineer Electric – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition under section 11(6) for arbitrator over unpaid bills. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. respondents dispute claims but concede arbitration clause. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. arbitrator appointed with liberty for objections. (Para 5 , 6) |
ORDER :
ARUN PALLI, CJ.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator.
2. The case set-up by the petitioner is that being a registered contractor, he participated in the bidding process initiated by respondent no.2 vide E-NIT No.SE-II/S&O/19 of 2018 dated 23.01.2018 for work “Construction of Retaining Walls (RW4) and (RW5) at Grid Station (Rangil) Alusten”. The petitioner emerging as the lowest bidder was issued allotment letter dated 10.05.2018 inter alia providing that the contract would be governed by the terms and conditions of the SBD. The petitioner, accordingly, executed and completed the work in March, 2019 and a work completion certificate stands issued in his favour. It is stated that in addition to the allotted work, some additional works were also executed by the petitioner. Accordingly, final bill is stated to have been submitted, however, the resp
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 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's authority to appoint an arbitrator in cases where the parties are unable to agree, in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the provisions of the Arbitration & Concil....
The court has jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator when parties cannot agree, reaffirming the necessity to comply with provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Existence of an arbitrable dispute and the proper invocation of the arbitration clause as per the extant law.
The withdrawal of a previous petition with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action does not affect the maintainability of the subsequent petition.
The court upheld the arbitrability of disputes arising from contractual obligations, appointing a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
The court's decision emphasized the appointment of a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court's decision emphasized the arbitrability of disputes and the appointment of a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
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
