SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
Gram Tarang Employability Training Services Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Jharkhand Skill Development Mission Society represented through its Mission Director, Department of Labour, Employment, Training and Skill Development – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant application is under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking a direction for appointment of Arbitrator for resolution of dispute.
2. The case as per the pleading made on behalf of the petitioner-applicant reads as under :
It is the case of the applicant/petitioner that the respondent had invited bids from the eligible bidders vide request for proposal (RFP) dated 22nd March, 2018 for setting up Mega Skill Training Centre, Ranchi and the petitioner in terms of the RFP submitted its Expression of Interest (EOI) dated 18th April, 2018, based on the technical evaluation score and technical presentation score, the Tender Committee constituted by the respondent finding the petitioner to be bidder, awarded the contract to the petitioner and subsequently, a Concession Agreement dated 11.10.2018 was executed between the petitioner and the respondent. The respondent, vide letter dated 08.03.2019 issued work order for various training services that can be provided by the petitioner and also mentioned the tentative training fee of INR 3589.48 Lakhs for the period of 5 years.
It is the further case of the petitioner that on 12.03.2019, the Elec
The main legal point established in the judgment is the Court's authority to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 based on the arbitration clause in....
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 the appointment of an Arbitrator must comply with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the choice of the Arbitrator must not ha....
: In cases where one party has a right to appoint a sole arbitrator, its choice will always have an element of exclusivity in determining or charting the course for dispute resolution.
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....
Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator by a party with a vested interest is improper and contradicts established legal principles regarding impartiality in arbitration.
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 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 main legal point established is that invoking the conciliation clause as per the contract and the respondent's failure to respond allows the petitioner to seek the appointment of an Arbitrator un....
Point of Law : Whatever advantage a party may derive by nominating an arbitrator of its choice would get counter balanced by equal power with the other party. But, in a case where only one party has ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.