Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the High Court could appoint a sole arbitrator ignoring the contractual procedure under Clause 29 of the arbitration agreement, including the requirement that the contractor furnish security deposit before constitution of the Arbitration Board.
Analysis: Clause 29 prescribed a complete appointment mechanism: the dispute had first to be taken to the Chief Engineer, then to MPL Com., and only thereafter could the Corporation constitute an Arbitration Board. The clause also made furnishing of security deposit by the contractor a precondition for maintainability of the reference and for the Corporation's obligation to constitute the Board. As the respondent had not furnished the security deposit, the contractual obligation to constitute the Board had not arisen. In such circumstances, the High Court could not bypass the agreed procedure and appoint a retired Chief Justice as sole arbitrator under Section 11(6)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Conclusion: The appointment of the sole arbitrator by the High Court was unjustified and contrary to the arbitration agreement; the contractual mechanism had to be followed, with constitution of the Arbitration Board arising only upon furnishing of the required security.