9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Jurisdiction of the court in appointing an arbitrator, consideration of fraud allegations in arbitration, appointment of arbitrator, location of arbitration proceedings, timeline and expenses for arbitration proceedings.
In this judgment, the main issue was the jurisdiction of the court in appointing an arbitrator. The court noted the existence of an arbitration clause in the contract between the parties and the Respondent's previous attempt to seek arbitration through the Bombay High Court. The court, however, held that the Bombay High Court lacked jurisdiction in this matter, and the Petitioner's application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was justified. Another issue addressed was the consideration of fraud allegations in arbitration. The Respondent had raised fraud allegations in their counter affidavit. The court opined that the Arbitrator could examine whether the contract was vitiated by fraud and that the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator could also be determined by the Arbitral Tribunal. Consequently, the court saw no reason not to appoint an Arbitrator in accordance with the arbitration agreement of the parties under Section 11(6) of the Act. Furthermore, the issue of appointing an arbitrator was resolved by the court. The Respondent, a company based in Bombay, and the Petitioner, a German company, had agreed that arbitration proceedings would take place in Bombay. Therefore, Justice S.N. Variava was appointed as the Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties. The court also addressed the timeline and expenses for the arbitration proceedings. The Arbitrator was directed to complete the arbitration within four months, and the fees and expenses for the proceedings were to be determined by the Arbitrator. In conclusion, the court allowed the application based on the terms mentioned, including the appointment of the Arbitrator, the location of arbitration proceedings, and the timeline and expenses for the arbitration process.
|
