Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Vipin Sanghi, CJ.
M/s Mahalaxmi Construction - Appellant
Versus
Project Manager, Construction Division, Uttarakhand Pey Jal Sansadhan Vikas Evem Nirman Nigam - Respondent
Arbitration Application No. 2 of 2023
Decided On : 13-01-2023
Arbitration - Appointment of Sole Arbitrator - The court appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties arising out of their agreement, as the respondent had no objection to the appointment. The court deemed it appropriate to appoint a practicing advocate of the court as the sole arbitrator, to which the parties also agreed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to adjudicate the disputes arising from their agreement. The respondent had no objection to the appointment.
Finding of the Court:
The court appointed Ms. Priyanka Agarwal, Advocate, as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties under the said Agreement.
Issues: Appointment of Sole Arbitrator, Invocation of Arbitration Agreement
Ratio Decidendi: The court can appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act if the respondent has no objection to the appointment.
Final Decision: The Arbitration Application stands disposed of.
JUDGMENT
Vipin Sanghi, CJ. - This application has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to seek appointment of a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties arising out of their agreement entered into on 16.06.2020, which is reflected in the Work Order issued to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner had participated in response to the NIT dated 25.01.2020, issued by the respondent for construction of Eklavya Aawasiya Vidyalaya and appurtenant works at Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. The terms and conditions of the tender which form part of the agreement between the parties, contains an Arbitration Agreement in Clause 25.
3. The petitioner issued notice to the respondent raising its claims, and also invoked Arbitration Agreement. It appears that on 30.05.2022, the petitioner responded to the communication of the respondent dated 18.05.2022, closing the contract. The petitioner also invoked the Arbitration Agreement. Since the respondent does not agree to appointment of an Arbitrator, the petitioner again invoked the same on 11.08.2022, but to no avail. Consequently, this application has been preferred.
4. Counsel for the respondent puts in appearance of service, on advance notice. On instructions, he states that respondent has no objection if this Court appoints a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
5. Under the said Agreement, since the claim of the petitioner is in a few lakhs, I deem it appropriate to appoint a practicing Advocate of this Court to act as a sole Arbitration, to which the parties also agree.
6. Accordingly, I appoint Ms. Priyanka Agarwal, Advocate, as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties under the said Agreement.
7. The Arbitration Application stands disposed of.
The court's decision was based on the existence of the Arbitration Agreement and the non-dispute by the respondent of the referability of disputes to arbitration.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to appoint a sole arbitrator when the parties are unabl....
The court confirmed that consent of both parties for the appointment of an arbitrator fulfills the requirements under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, enabling dispute resolutio....
Court has the discretion to appoint a new Arbitrator to continue unresolved arbitration proceedings, affirming continuity even after the previous Arbitrator's death.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the waiver of the bar under Section 12(5) of the Act requires an express agreement in writing, and in the absence of such agreement, the court....
The main legal point established is the enforcement of the arbitration clause and the appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute.
The court emphasized the importance of 'express agreement in writing' to waive the bar contained in Section 12(5) of the Act and held that failure to appoint the requested Arbitrator within the speci....
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
