Where parties decide to put an end to the original contract as if it never existed and substituted a new contract with it, then in such a situation the original contract is extinguished by the substituted one and the arbitration clause of the original one perishes with it.
Unilateral Appointment of the Sole Arbitrator vitiates the proceedings of Arbitration.
Supreme Court refused to give effect to the appointment of an officer of the Ministry of Law and Justice as an arbitrator.
Even if the Arbitrator is successful in justifying his reasons for deciding a rate of interest, the Agreement between the parties being the birth-giver, should be held at a higher stature when it concerns an issue that has been pre-decided and mutually agreed upon by the parties.
Calcutta High Court held that an arbitrator unilaterally appointed by one party lacks inherent jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes between both the parties.
Delhi High Court: In a review petition filed under Section 114 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code on behalf
The Court, while exercising powers under Section 11 of the Act, can refuse to refer the parties to arbitration only where “it is manifestly and ex facie certain that the arbitration agreement is nonexistent, invalid or the disputes are non-arbitrable, though the nature and facet of non-arbitrability would, to some extent, determine the level and nature of judicial scrutiny.”
Gujarat High Court: While deciding the instant petition, Aravind Kumar, C.J., said that the prayer for appointment of an arbitrator
Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Narula, J., allowed an arbitration petition by appointing a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the contesting parties.
Delhi High Court: Suresh Kumar Kait, J., reiterated that no party could be permitted to unilaterally appoint an Arbitrator, as the same
Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Narula, J., refused to interfere in the interim arbitral award whereby the sole arbitrator had allowed certain claims of
Delhi High Court: J.R. Midha, J., in view of serious doubts on the independence of sole arbitrator as named in the arbitration
Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Narula, J., decides a matter covering various aspects of the arbitration agreement. Instant petition under Section 11 of
Delhi High Court: Vibhu Bakhru, J., while addressing the matter in respect to the invocation of an arbitration clause expressed that: “…the
Delhi High Court: Kameswar Rao, J., decided a petition wherein on the invocation of the arbitration clause, one of the parties appointed
Delhi High Court: Jayant Nath, J., while addressing the matter stressed upon the essentiality of Novation and Arbitration Agreement. Factual Matrix The
“If the Courts are allowed to interfere with the arbitral process beyond the ambit of the enactment, then the efficiency of the process will be diminished.”
Kerala High Court: T.V. Anilkumar, J., dismissed the present Appeal against the impugned order of Additional District Court whereby the Court refused
Karnataka High Court: S.R. Krishna Kumar, J., allowing the present petition for the appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of
Karnataka High Court: John Michael Cunha, J. disposed of the petition by appointing a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the said matter in