9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Appointment of arbitrator beyond the specified period - Jurisdiction of the court to appoint an arbitrator - Impartiality of the appointed arbitrator Analysis: 1. The petitioner filed a petition under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, alleging that they were entitled to a minimum order as per the terms of the contract but faced a shortfall in the order placed by the respondents. The matter was disposed of with a direction for arbitration. Despite invoking the arbitration clause, delays and changes in arbitrator appointments occurred. 2. A decision was taken to appoint a new arbitrator, rendering the initial petition infructuous. The petitioner expressed disagreement with the new appointment due to the arbitrator's involvement in monitoring another case related to the petitioner. 3. Subsequently, a different arbitrator was appointed, but the petitioner opposed this appointment as well, citing concerns about the arbitrator's impartiality due to their prior involvement in related arbitration matters. The petitioner also questioned the appointing authority's jurisdiction to make the appointment during the ongoing petition. 4. The main argument presented was regarding the appointment of the arbitrator beyond the 30-day period from the petitioner's notice, questioning the jurisdiction of the court to make the appointment. The petitioner relied on legal provisions and a Supreme Court decision to support their argument. However, the court found the submission lacking merit as the provisions cited were not applicable in the given situation. 5. The court dismissed the petition, stating that if the previous arbitrator failed to act promptly, the appropriate remedy would have been to file a petition for their removal. The appointment of the new arbitrator could only be challenged through the procedure outlined in the Act and not in the current petition. The court clarified that the previous Supreme Court decision cited was not relevant to the case at hand. 6. In conclusion, the petition was dismissed for lacking merit, and no costs were awarded. The judgment emphasized the proper procedures for challenging arbitrator appointments and the limitations on the court's jurisdiction in such matters.
|
