Back
M. SUNDAR
Tamil Nadu Water Investment Company Limited, Represented herein by its Authorised Signatory 'Polyhose Towers' Guindy, Chennai – Appellant
Versus
Kasipalayam Common Effluent Treatment Plant Pvt. Ltd. , S. Periyapalayem (PO) – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Arbitration Original Petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to
(a) Appoint the Presiding Arbitrator in terms of Clause 19 of the PMA Agreement dated 10th April 2012 for the purpose of adjudicating the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent;
(b) Direct the respondent to pay the costs of this proceeding to the petitioner;)
1. Captioned 'Arbitration Original Petition' [hereinafter 'Arb OP' for the sake of convenience and clarity] has been presented in this Court on 08.09.2021 under Section 11 of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act No.26 of 1996)' [hereinafter 'A and C Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity] with a prayer for appointment of the Presiding Arbitrator.
2. Mr.S.Raghunathan, learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Ms.R.Sahana and Ms.K.Subhashini, learned counsel of Chennai Law Associates (Law Firm) on behalf of the lone respondent are before this Court.
3. Both aforementioned learned counsel were heard.
4. There is no disputation that the captioned Arb OP is predicated on clause 19 of an agreement which is referred to as 'PMA Agreement' (to be noted, this Court is informed that 'PMA'
The Court's decision was guided by the narrow interpretation of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the legislative policy to minimize court intervention in appointing ar....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the narrow scope of examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement under Section 11(6) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the narrow scope of examination under Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, confining the court's intervention to the ex....
The Court's decision was influenced by the narrow interpretation of Section 11(6A) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as discussed in the Mayavati Trading case law and Duro Felguera princ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the narrow scope of examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and th....
The main legal point established is the court's adherence to the narrow examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement under Section 11(6A) and the emphasis on expeditious disposal of Secti....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to appoint a sole arbitrator based on the existence of an arbitration agreement, in accordance with the statutory provisions ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the statutory perimeter under Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, confines the examination of the existence of an ar....
The Court has the authority to downsize the number of members of an Arbitral Tribunal in a Section 11 legal drill based on the nature of arbitrable disputes and other determinants.
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
