9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the court for appointment of an arbitrator. 2. Existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties. 3. Non-appointment of an arbitrator by the respondent. 4. Validity of objections raised by the respondent. Analysis: 1. The petitioner filed a petition under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 based on an arbitration clause in the tender document. The respondent raised objections regarding the court's jurisdiction, the arbitration agreement's existence, the petitioner's legal standing, and the cause of action against the respondent. 2. The court referred to the judgment in Konkan Railway Corpn. (P.) Ltd. v. Rani Construction (P.) Ltd. [2002] 2 SCC 388, stating that section 11 of the Act does not necessitate notice issuance to the opposite party before arbitrator appointment. The court clarified that the arbitrator, not the court, would address objections concerning the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. The objection regarding the court's pecuniary jurisdiction was deemed untenable. 3. Given the presence of an arbitration agreement and the respondent's failure to appoint an arbitrator after notice under section 11(4)(a) of the Act, the court found merit in appointing an arbitrator under section 11(6) of the Act. Consequently, Shri Niranjan Singh was appointed as the arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from the tender document dated 9-11-1995, with the arbitrator responsible for determining the fee, not exceeding Rs. 35,000. 4. The court directed the parties to appear before the appointed arbitrator for further instructions on 30-9-2002 at 2.00 PM, emphasizing that the objections raised by the respondent would be addressed by the arbitrator during the arbitration proceedings, not by the court during the petition disposal under section 11 of the Act.
|
