9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Application for appointment of arbitrator under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. - Dispute regarding appointment of arbitrator by the Chief Justice or designated person. - Validity of appointment of arbitrator after the filing of the application. - Authority of the Chief Justice to appoint arbitrator. Analysis: 1. The application was made under sub-section (6) of section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from a contract. The arbitration agreement in the contract specified the procedure for appointing an arbitrator in case of disputes. 2. The petitioner requested the Chief Justice to appoint an arbitrator as the appointing authority failed to do so. The respondents opposed this appointment, claiming that an arbitrator had been appointed during the proceedings, making the application redundant. However, previous judgments clarified that the Chief Justice or designated person should make the appointment directly for impartiality. 3. The respondents also argued that there was no time limit for appointing an arbitrator, suggesting they could appoint one even after the application was filed. The petitioner contended that post-application appointments were invalid in the eyes of the law, insisting that only the Chief Justice or designated person could make such appointments. 4. The court found the petitioner's actions reasonable, waiting for 30 days before seeking the Chief Justice's intervention. It stated that a lack of time limit did not prevent approaching the Chief Justice if the appointing authority delayed unreasonably. The court deemed the appointment made during the proceedings as legally invalid. 5. Consequently, the court exercised its power under sub-section (6) of section 11 to appoint an arbitrator. Considering the technical nature of the dispute, a retired Chief Engineer was chosen from a list provided by the respondents, with no objections from the petitioner's counsel. 6. Mr. M.C. Desai, a retired Chief Engineer, was appointed as the sole arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties, concluding the arbitration petition. 7. The court directed the Prothonotary and Senior Master to inform the appointed arbitrator of the decision, thereby concluding the matter. This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the legal intricacies involved in the process of appointing an arbitrator and resolving disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
|
