Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice ABDUL QUDDHOSE
Shriram Finance Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
A. Arockiadass – Respondent
ORDER :
Abdul Quddhose, J.
This petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, seeking for the appointment of an Arbitrator by this Court.
2.There seems to be a dispute between the petitioner and the respondents arising out of the Loan Agreement dated 30.03.2016. The said Loan Agreement admittedly contains an arbitration clause and the same is extracted hereunder:
'17.Arbitration and Dispute Settlement
a)All disputes, differences and/or claims, arising out of this Agreement, whether during its subsistence or thereafter, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any other statutory modification or re-enactment for the time being in force and shall be conducted by a sole arbitrator to be appointed by the Lender under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The applicable law shall be Indian laws. In the event of incapacity or resignation or death of the sole arbitrator so appointed, the Lender shall be entitled to appoint another arbitrator in place of the earlier arbitrator and the proceedings shall continue from the stage at which the predecessor had left.
b)
The existence of an arbitration clause allows a party to seek court assistance for appointing an arbitrator when no consensus exists, with other disputes to be resolved by the arbitrator.
Court held that under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, an arbitrator can be appointed when an arbitration clause exists and procedural requirements are met.
The court must appoint an arbitrator when parties do not reach consensus despite an existing arbitration clause as stipulated under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The existence of arbitration clauses in interlinked contracts suffices for appointing an Arbitrator, and procedural missteps do not bar relief if entitlement is established.
The court affirmed that failure to respond to conciliation requests allows for the appointment of an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court appointed an arbitrator as the parties consented to arbitration under the existing arbitration clause, complying with statutory requirements.
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....
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
