Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MINI PUSHKARNA
Omaxe New Chandigarh Developers Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Atharva Hotel Superfluities India Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the arbitration clause and disputes (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. respondent's objections and arguments against arbitration (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. limitations of court's inquiry under section 11(6) (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. arbitration clauses and impact of prior correspondences (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. judicial precedents on arbitration process (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. nature of pre-arbitration procedures and their implications (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 7. existence of arbitration agreement confirmed (Para 26 , 27) |
| 8. appointment of sole arbitrator (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
JUDGMENT :
MINI PUSHKARNA, J.
1. The present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause, i.e. Clause 15 (b) of the Lease Deed dated 15th November, 2022 (“Lease Deed”) which provides for adjudication of disputes between the parties by arbitration.
2. Facts of the case, as canvassed in the petition, are as follows:
2.1 The petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the business of real estate development, includi
The court affirmed that the inquiry under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act is restricted to the existence of an arbitration agreement, allowing disputes to proceed to arbitration without mandator....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of an arbitrator must be in accordance with the agreed procedure in the contract. If the appointment is not in line with the a....
An arbitrator's appointment must adhere to the agreed procedure; failure to do so renders the appointment invalid under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act.
The Conciliation process mentioned in the Contract was not mandatory and could not affect the petitioner's right to invoke the Arbitration Agreement, especially when there was justified urgency to pr....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of a legal drill under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the expeditious disposal of petitions under ....
The conciliation process under the Arbitration Agreement was not mandatory, and the petitioner's attempts at mutual consultation satisfied the requirements of the contract.
The proper invocation of an Arbitration Agreement and the non-supersession of an existing agreement by a subsequent settlement were central legal principles established in the judgment.
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
