TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses appeal for independent arbitrator under Arbitration Act due to claim exclusion and delay.</h1> <h3>Sarvesh Chopra Builders(P) Limited Versus Union of India</h3> Sarvesh Chopra Builders(P) Limited Versus Union of India - (2008) 23 CLA (Snr.) Del 11 Issues:1. Appointment of an independent sole arbitrator under Sections 11(6) and 14(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.2. Interpretation of the arbitration agreement in a contract for earthwork.3. Exclusion of certain claims from arbitration scope.4. Delay in filing claims before the arbitrators.Analysis:Issue 1: Appointment of an independent sole arbitratorThe appellant appealed against the dismissal of their petition for the appointment of an independent sole arbitrator. The dispute arose from a contract for earthwork, and the appellant sought arbitration for various claims. The respondent suggested a panel of arbitrators, leading to the appointment of arbitrators. However, the appellant raised concerns about the appointment process, leading to the appeal for an independent sole arbitrator.Issue 2: Interpretation of the arbitration agreementThe contract between the parties included a clause for settlement of disputes through arbitration. The appellant raised multiple claims, including payment disputes and contract termination issues. The respondent referred only some claims for arbitration, leading to a dispute over the interpretation of the arbitration clause. The court analyzed the scope of the arbitration agreement and whether certain claims fell within its purview based on the contract terms.Issue 3: Exclusion of certain claims from arbitrationThe court examined the specific claims raised by the appellant, focusing on claims related to business loss and reputation damages. The respondent argued that these claims were outside the scope of the arbitration agreement as per the contract terms. The court referred to the agreement's clause excluding claims for idle labor, machinery, business loss, or similar losses. The exclusion clause was crucial in determining the arbitrability of certain claims.Issue 4: Delay in filing claims before arbitratorsThe court emphasized the importance of timely filing claims before arbitrators to avoid delays in the arbitration process. The appellant argued that the delay was due to arbitrators not commencing proceedings promptly. However, the court noted that the appellant failed to file a formal statement of claim before the arbitrators despite raising claims earlier. The court considered the delay in approaching the court for arbitration after a significant period of inaction, highlighting the principle of laches.In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, citing lack of merit due to issues such as the exclusion of certain claims from arbitration, delay in filing claims, and adherence to the arbitration agreement's terms. The judgment underscores the significance of timely action and adherence to contractual provisions in arbitration disputes to ensure the efficacy of the process.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
