Without Intervention of Court any for sole arbitrator filed in the court, will be further referred to Arbitration: High Court of Delhi
Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 deals with the reference of the disputes, between the parties, to arbitration. The validity of arbitral award was challenged and the proceeding, of the same, was held on September 10th 2021, and was presided over by a single judge bench, consisting of JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR. The pertinent case was held in the Delhi High Court, in the matter of TO THE NEW PRIVATE LTD. V. GOLDEN TOWER INFRA TECH LTD. [ARB.P. 428/2021] filed under section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The facts of the above case, as contended by the parties are as follows. The respondents doubted the maintainability of the dispute under arbitration proceedings, with regards to the amount of claim. The above doubt arose due to the petitioner who submits that his client seeks reference, to arbitration, only of his entitlement to the amount of waiver of Rs. 57,85, 750, by a legal notice to the respondents.
In furtherance to the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the only misgiving, of his client is regarding the nature of the actual dispute being referred to arbitration, specifically the quantum of the claim. The respondent had no further issues in resorting to arbitration but was only checking the validity of the said case. As a result, the same case was subjected to be heard at Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). DIAC would then be appointing a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the subject matter of the case.
Keeping an account of the facts of the case and the arguments of the parties, the Hon’ble Court held that “the arbitration could be held to proceed under the aegis of DIAC and in accordance with its rules and regulations. Further, the court also put light upon the facts of the case and opined that it has expressed no opinion on the merits of the controversy between the parties and all questions of fact in law remain open to agitation in the arbitral proceedings.”
Judgement reviewed by Pratikshya Pattnaik