9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appointment of an arbitrator under section 11(2)(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 based on a dispute regarding failure to appoint an arbitrator as per the agreement. Analysis: The petitioner sought the appointment of an arbitrator as the respondent failed to appoint one as per the agreement. The respondent argued that a subsequent letter superseded the initial notice for arbitration. The court referred to the Konkan Railway Corpn. Ltd. v. Rani Construction (P.) Ltd. case, stating that the Chief Justice is not obligated to adjudicate disputes regarding the arbitration agreement's existence or failure to appoint an arbitrator within thirty days. The court clarified that the Chief Justice's role is limited to appointing an arbitrator based on the correspondence between the parties. In this case, the respondent acknowledged the initial notice but claimed the subsequent letter nullified it. However, the court found that the subsequent letter did not withdraw the request for arbitration and was merely a request for payment, not appointing an arbitrator. The court concluded that the respondent was obligated to appoint an arbitrator despite the subsequent letter. The court allowed the application and appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Ramamoorthy as the arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties arising from the agreement. The arbitrator was given the authority to determine his fee, and both parties were instructed to appear before the arbitrator on a specified date. The court directed the issuance of a notice to the appointed arbitrator and ordered the distribution of the order to both parties' counsel.
|
