Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN
Colliers International (India) Property Services Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Arrowline Real Estate Private Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. arbitration application under section 11(6) (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. appointment and conduct of the sole arbitrator (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. application granted and procedural directives (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
1. Heard both sides.
2. This arbitration application has been filed under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator and for reference of the dispute arising out of the clause 25.1 of the agreement dated 22.03.2022 between the parties for adjudication.
3. Since, there is an arbitration clause which is admitted by both parties, therefore, Hon’ble Mr. Justice. Talwant Singh, retired judge of Delhi High Court, New Residential Address:- X-19, Hauz Khas, Near Nift Campus, New Delhi; Old Residential Address:- W-21/5, Westen Avenue, Sainik Farm, New Delhi-110062; Office:- X-19, Ground Floor, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016, is hereby appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
4. All contentions available to the parties are left open.
5. Learned Arbitrator would be free to lay down the fees and other expenses towards conduct of the arbitration proceedings, however, while doing so he shall take into ac
The court confirmed the necessity of appointing an arbitrator when an arbitration clause is admitted by both parties, as required under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court's decision emphasized the appointment of an arbitrator and the allowance of all contentions to be urged and contested in the arbitral proceedings.
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 court affirms the validity of the arbitration agreement and appoints an arbitrator as the parties consented to resolve disputes via arbitration.
Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is contrary to Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, necessitating mutual agreement for such appointment.
The court reaffirmed that the existence of an arbitration agreement is sufficient for the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The consent of both parties to appoint a sole arbitrator underscores the principle of mutual agreement in arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court has the authority to appoint a sole arbitrator and modify its previous order if the initially appointed arbitrator refuses to act.
The court appointed an arbitrator to resolve disputes as per the arbitration clause in the agreement, emphasizing that the parties are bound to arbitrate their disagreements.
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
