Back
ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Amit Agarwal – Appellant
Versus
Atul Gupta – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of arbitration disputes and applications under article 227. (Para 1 , 2 , 8 , 10) |
| 2. arguments regarding jurisdiction and undue delay in arbitration. (Para 12 , 16 , 18 , 26) |
| 3. court's considerations on jurisdiction and conduct of arbitrator. (Para 20 , 22 , 24 , 30) |
| 4. final conclusions on termination of arbitrator's mandate. (Para 23 , 36) |
| 5. final decision and dismissal of writ petitions. (Para 38) |
JUDGMENT :
ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
1. These two writ petitions have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the judgment and order dated 14.09.2023 passed by Commercial Court No. 1, Meerut in Arbitration Case No. 142 of 2022 (Old No. 22 of 2016) and Arbitration Case No. 143 of 2022 (Old No. 72 of 2015) (Atul Gupta vs. Amit Agrawal & Anr.) allowing the application filed by respondent No. 1 under Section 14 (2) of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called as “Act of 1996”).
2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present petitions are that the petitioner Amit Agrawal entered into business of real estate in the year 1983. Respondent No. 1 joined his business and both the petitioner and respondent No. 1 carried on the bus
Excessive delay by an arbitrator of over eight years justifies the termination of their mandate under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The Arbitrator's prolonged inaction over eight years constituted undue delay, justifying the termination of his mandate under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the application under section 11(6) of the Act, 1996 is not maintainable when the sole Arbitrator is appointed by mutual consent and in the ab....
Point of Law : There was concurrent jurisdiction conferred on the courts ceased with subject matter in dispute and the courts where arbitration was carried out.
The jurisdictional seat of arbitration was Panchkula in Haryana, and not Delhi, as the arbitrator had fixed the jurisdictional seat under Section 20(2) of the Act before any party had moved the court....
The jurisdiction for appointing an arbitrator lies with the court where the principal agreement was executed, as per Section 11(6), despite a venue specified in an ancillary agreement.
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
