Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2022 (5) TMI 1109 - HC - Indian LawsAppointment of Arbitrator - condition stipulated under Clause 51 of the Arbitration Agreement dated 12.03.1987 - Section 11(6)(C) of the Act 1996 - HELD THAT - The admitted fact as would appear from the material available on record that the petitioner/applicant has entered into an agreement on 12.03.1987 for construction of Officer s Bungalows at Jubilee Park site and Adityapur Site Jamshedpur presently in Jharkhand State - The petitioner/applicant has concluded the work but certain claim pertaining to disbursement of amount has been crept up as such recourse available under the contract has been resorted to by making request before the concerned competent authority of the State of Jharkhand for appointment of sole Arbitrator. The Hon ble Apex Court further in the case of PROJECT DIRECTOR NATIONAL HIGHWAYS NO. 45 E AND 220 NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA VERSUS M. HAKEEM ANR. 2021 (7) TMI 1343 - SUPREME COURT has been pleased to hold at paragraph-25 thereof that the application under Section 11(6)(C) of the Act 1996 is maintainable for appointment of sole Arbitrator once award is being quashed by the competent court of law. This Court after taking into consideration the aforesaid proposition of law as has been settled by the Hon ble Apex Court and after going across the facts of the given case wherefrom it is evident that even though the award was pronounced on 20.12.2005 which was affirmed by the Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 34 of the Act 1996 but has been quashed and set aside by this Court in exercise of power under Section 37 of the Act 1996 and subsequent thereto the Hon ble Apex Court has also affirmed the order passed by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 37 of the Act 1996 is of the view that the dispute remain unresolved therefore if application under Section 11(6)(C) of the Act 1996 has been filed by the petitioner/applicant the same cannot be held to be not maintainable. This Court in view of the aforesaid finding is of the considered view that a fresh Arbitrator is required to be appointed so that the claim in question be resolved - Application allowed.
|