SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(UK) 470

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Vipin Sanghi, CJ.
Lalita Singh - Appellant
Versus
Gopal Singh Khetwal - Respondent
Arbitration Application No. 24 of 2021
Decided On : 16-12-2022

Advocates appeared:
B.S. Kathayat, Advocate, Shiv Pande, Advocate

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 unable to agree upon the constitution of an arbitral tribunal.

Headnote:

Arbitration - Appointment of Sole Arbitrator - The court allowed the application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties arising out of the agreement containing an arbitration clause.

Fact of the Case:

The applicant sought appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to resolve disputes arising from an agreement related to the operation of a stone crusher.

Finding of the Court:

The court allowed the application and appointed a retired judge as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate all the disputes, claims, and counter-claims between the parties arising from the agreement.

Issues: Disputes between the parties under the agreement containing an arbitration clause, appointment of sole arbitrator, and adjudication of claims and counter-claims.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the provisions of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which empowers the court to appoint a sole arbitrator if the parties are unable to agree upon the constitution of an arbitral tribunal.

Final Decision: The court appointed a retired judge as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate all the disputes, claims, and counter-claims of the parties arising from the agreement, thereby disposing of the application.

JUDGMENT

Vipin Sanghi, CJ. - This application has been preferred by the applicant under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to seek appointment of the sole Arbitrator, to resolve the disputes between the parties, in terms of the Agreement dated 01.05.2019, in relation to operation of stone crusher. The said agreement was extended upon its expiry. The said agreement contains an arbitration clause in Clause 18.

2. Disputes arose between the parties under the said agreement and, consequently, the applicant invoked the arbitration agreement vide notice dated 17.06.2021. Despite issuance of the said notice, parties have not been able to agree upon constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal and, consequently, the present application has been preferred.

3. Upon issuance of the notice, the respondent has put in appearance through counsel. Learned counsel for the respondent does not oppose the appointment of the sole Arbitrator by this Court to adjudicate all the disputes, claims/ counter-claims between the parties arising out of the aforesaid agreement.

4. Accordingly, I allow the present application and appoint Mr. Justice Jayant Nath, (Retd.), Judge, Delhi High Court (Mobile No.9810032986), to act as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate all the disputes, claims and counter-claims of the parties, arising out of the aforesaid agreement.

5. Application stands disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top