Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
Rajendra Mimani – Appellant
Versus
Power Transmission Corporation of Uttarakhand Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, ACJ.
1. This is an application for appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11 r/w Section 15 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The Arbitrator earlier appointed by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.12.2021 had recused, therefore, the applicant has sought appointment of sole Arbitrator, in terms of Clause 45.2 of the agreement dated 05.08.2016. The order dated 31.12.2021 passed by Coordinate Bench in Arbitration Petition No.34 of2021 is reproduced below:
“1. In this application, filed under sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the ‘Act’), the applicant has prayed for appointment of one or more independent and impartial persons as Arbitrator(s) to constitute a sole Arbitrator.
2. Clause 54.2 of the Agreement dated 05.08.2016 is the arbitration clause for resolving the disputes between the parties, which is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent.
3. Both the learned counsel submit that the sole Arbitrator may be appointed. Both the learned counsel has made a suggestion before this Court that former Judge of this Court Mr. Justice V.K. Bist, R/o D-37, MDDA Colony, Sahast
The court established that upon recusal of an Arbitrator, a substitute must be appointed per Section 15(2) of the Arbitration Act, adhering to the initial appointment rules.
The interpretation of Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is that where the mandate of an arbitrator terminates, a substitute arbitrator shall be appointed according to the ru....
The appointment of a substitute arbitrator under section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, should be governed by the same rules that were applicable to the appointment of the arbit....
Point of law: As per the legal position settled by the Supreme Court in catena of judgments, the High Court has the jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the said Act to nullify the appointments made b....
A partner lacks authority to represent a firm in arbitration without the express consent of other partners, and appointment of a substitute arbitrator requires adherence to agreed procedures under th....
No power has been invested by Parliament in the Court to remand the matter to the Arbitral Tribunal except to adjourn the proceedings for the limited purpose mentioned in sub-section (4) of Section 3....
Point of Law : Power to modify, vary or remit the award does not exist under Section 34 of the Act.
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
