{"id":300002,"date":"2023-08-25T11:00:24","date_gmt":"2023-08-25T05:30:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=300002"},"modified":"2023-08-28T15:24:53","modified_gmt":"2023-08-28T09:54:53","slug":"rajasthan-hc-appointed-arbitrator-bank-guarantee-forfeited-consideration-force-majeure-clause","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/25\/rajasthan-hc-appointed-arbitrator-bank-guarantee-forfeited-consideration-force-majeure-clause\/","title":{"rendered":"Rajasthan High Court appoints sole arbitrator where performance security was forfeited without considering force majeure clause"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Rajasthan High Court<\/span>: In a case wherein, the arbitration applications were filed under Section 11<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (‘the Act') for referring the dispute between the parties to arbitration by appointment of a sole arbitrator, Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.<\/span>, opined that the agreement clause related to appointment of the arbitrator was required to be invoked and accordingly appointed the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.<\/p>\n

In the present case, the petitioner was a firm registered under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006<\/a> and the respondent herein had issued an e-tender notice for maintenance and provisioning of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (‘BSNL') network. The petitioner was declared as successful bidder and an agreement was entered between the petitioner and the respondent, according to which, an advance work order was issued in favour of the petitioner.<\/p>\n

Thereafter, the dispute arose between the parties regarding the work in question. Subsequently, the petitioner sent a letter to the respondent requesting to refer the dispute for the arbitration and for appointment of an arbitrator, as per Arbitration Clause 20 of the agreement.<\/p>\n

The petitioner submitted that the respondent violated Clause 17.01 of the agreement, as it did not take into consideration the force majeure i.e., Covid-19 Pandemic and forfeited the performance security of the petitioners. The petitioner further submitted that the parties were bound by the arbitration clause and thus, the dispute deserved to be referred for arbitration.<\/p>\n

The respondent submitted that as per Section 5-A, Clause 8 of the tender document, the Appointing Authority to appoint an arbitrator was the Chief General Manager Telecom, Rajasthan (‘CGMT') and since, the petitioner did not adhere to the provisions and did not approach the CGMT, the applications should be dismissed.<\/p>\n

The Court relied on Perkins Eastman Architects DPSC<\/i> v. HSCC Ltd.<\/i>, (2020) 20 SCC 760<\/a> and opined that this Court was conscious that any further issues could be raised by either of the parties before the arbitrator who would deal with the issues in accordance with the law.<\/p>\n

Thus, the Court opined that the agreement clause related to appointment of the arbitrator was required to be invoked and thus, accordingly allowed the applications.<\/p>\n

The Court exercised the powers conferred under Section 11 of the Act and appointed, Jai Prakash Narayan Purohit, Retired Additional District Judge, as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. The Court further stated that the payment of cost of arbitration proceedings and arbitration fee should be made as per the Schedule 4 of the Act.<\/p>\n

[Yogesh Somani v. Bharat Sanchar Bhawan Janpath, 2023 SCC OnLine Raj 1357<\/a>, order dated 18-8-2023<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

For the Petitioners: Harsh Tikoo, Advocate<\/p>\n

For the Respondents: Rajesh Shah, Advocate<\/p>\n

Buy Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996   HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"arbitration<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“The Court exercised the powers conferred under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and appointed, Jai Prakash Narayan Purohit, Retired Additional District Judge, as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":294411,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[24904,10111,40741,15811,2575,45421],"class_list":["post-300002","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-appointment-of-arbitrator","tag-arbitration-agreement","tag-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996","tag-force-majeure","tag-Rajasthan_High_Court","tag-section-11"],"yoast_head":"\nRajasthan HC appoints sole arbitrator where bank guarantee was forfeited without considering force majeure clause | SCC Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Rajasthan High Court opined that agreement clause related to appointment of Arbitrator was required to be invoked and thus appointed sole arbitrator to adjudicate dispute between the parties.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/25\/rajasthan-hc-appointed-arbitrator-bank-guarantee-forfeited-consideration-force-majeure-clause\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajasthan High Court appoints sole arbitrator where performance security was forfeited without considering force majeure clause\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Rajasthan High Court opined that agreement clause related to appointment of Arbitrator was required to be invoked and thus appointed sole arbitrator to adjudicate dispute between the parties.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/25\/rajasthan-hc-appointed-arbitrator-bank-guarantee-forfeited-consideration-force-majeure-clause\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-08-25T05:30:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-08-28T09:54:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/rajasthan-high-court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Rajasthan High Court appoints sole arbitrator where performance security was forfeited without considering force majeure clause\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/25\/rajasthan-hc-appointed-arbitrator-bank-guarantee-forfeited-consideration-force-majeure-clause\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/25\/rajasthan-hc-appointed-arbitrator-bank-guarantee-forfeited-consideration-force-majeure-clause\/\",\"name\":\"Rajasthan HC appoints sole arbitrator where bank guarantee was forfeited without considering force majeure clause | SCC Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/25\/rajasthan-hc-appointed-arbitrator-bank-guarantee-forfeited-consideration-force-majeure-clause\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/25\/rajasthan-hc-appointed-arbitrator-bank-guarantee-forfeited-consideration-force-majeure-clause\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/rajasthan-high-court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-08-25T05:30:24+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-08-28T09:54:53+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Rajasthan High Court opined that agreement clause related to appointment of Arbitrator was required to be invoked and thus appointed sole arbitrator to adjudicate dispute between the parties.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/25\/rajasthan-hc-appointed-arbitrator-bank-guarantee-forfeited-consideration-force-majeure-clause\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/25\/rajasthan-hc-appointed-arbitrator-bank-guarantee-forfeited-consideration-force-majeure-clause\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/25\/rajasthan-hc-appointed-arbitrator-bank-guarantee-forfeited-consideration-force-majeure-clause\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/rajasthan-high-court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/rajasthan-high-court.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"rajasthan high court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/25\/rajasthan-hc-appointed-arbitrator-bank-guarantee-forfeited-consideration-force-majeure-clause\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajasthan High Court appoints sole arbitrator where performance security was forfeited without considering force majeure clause\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Rajasthan HC appoints sole arbitrator where bank guarantee was forfeited without considering force majeure clause | SCC Blog","description":"Rajasthan High Court opined that agreement clause related to appointment of Arbitrator was required to be invoked and thus appointed sole arbitrator to adjudicate dispute between the parties.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/25\/rajasthan-hc-appointed-arbitrator-bank-guarantee-forfeited-consideration-force-majeure-clause\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajasthan High Court appoints sole arbitrator where performance security was forfeited without considering force majeure clause","og_description":"Rajasthan High Court opined that agreement clause related to appointment of Arbitrator was required to be invoked and thus appointed sole arbitrator to adjudicate dispute between the parties.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/25\/rajasthan-hc-appointed-arbitrator-bank-guarantee-forfeited-consideration-force-majeure-clause\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2023-08-25T05:30:24+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-08-28T09:54:53+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/rajasthan-high-court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Rajasthan High Court appoints sole arbitrator where performance security was forfeited without considering force majeure clause","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/25\/rajasthan-hc-appointed-arbitrator-bank-guarantee-forfeited-consideration-force-majeure-clause\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/25\/rajasthan-hc-appointed-arbitrator-bank-guarantee-forfeited-consideration-force-majeure-clause\/","name":"Rajasthan HC appoints sole arbitrator where bank guarantee was forfeited without considering force majeure clause | SCC Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/25\/rajasthan-hc-appointed-arbitrator-bank-guarantee-forfeited-consideration-force-majeure-clause\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/25\/rajasthan-hc-appointed-arbitrator-bank-guarantee-forfeited-consideration-force-majeure-clause\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/rajasthan-high-court.webp","datePublished":"2023-08-25T05:30:24+00:00","dateModified":"2023-08-28T09:54:53+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Rajasthan High Court opined that agreement clause related to appointment of Arbitrator was required to be invoked and thus appointed sole arbitrator to adjudicate dispute between the parties.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/25\/rajasthan-hc-appointed-arbitrator-bank-guarantee-forfeited-consideration-force-majeure-clause\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/25\/rajasthan-hc-appointed-arbitrator-bank-guarantee-forfeited-consideration-force-majeure-clause\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/25\/rajasthan-hc-appointed-arbitrator-bank-guarantee-forfeited-consideration-force-majeure-clause\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/rajasthan-high-court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/rajasthan-high-court.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"rajasthan high court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/25\/rajasthan-hc-appointed-arbitrator-bank-guarantee-forfeited-consideration-force-majeure-clause\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajasthan High Court appoints sole arbitrator where performance security was forfeited without considering force majeure clause"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/rajasthan-high-court.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":301383,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/13\/rajasthan-hc-seat-of-arbitration-has-exclusive-jurisdiction-for-applications-filed-u-s-11-of-the-ac-act-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":300002,"position":0},"title":"Seat of arbitration once fixed by the arbitration agreement, has the exclusive jurisdiction for applications u\/s 11 of the A&C Act, 1996: Rajasthan High Court","author":"Editor","date":"September 13, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe Court observes that the \u2018contrary indicia\u2019 is clearly reflected in the present case, because the seat was mentioned as Bikaner and venue was mentioned as New Delhi.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"rajasthan high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/rajasthan-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/rajasthan-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/rajasthan-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/rajasthan-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":348366,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/20\/limitation-period-for-invoking-arbitration-begins-from-date-of-notice-rajasthan-high-court-appoints-sole-arbitrator-in-bsnl-contract-dispute-scc-times\/","url_meta":{"origin":300002,"position":1},"title":"\u2018Limitation period for invoking Arbitration begins from date of notice\u2019; Rajasthan High Court appoints Sole Arbitrator in BSNL Contract Dispute","author":"Ritu","date":"May 20, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe agreement executed between the parties is not disputed. This fact is not in dispute that the contract of the petitioner has been terminated and the money has been forfeited by the respondents in the month of October, 2019.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Rajasthan High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Rajasthan-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Rajasthan-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Rajasthan-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Rajasthan-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":335098,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/14\/supreme-court-refers-dispute-to-diac-sole-arbitrator\/","url_meta":{"origin":300002,"position":2},"title":"\u2018Existence of arbitration agreement in license agreement and share subscription agreement not in dispute\u2019, Supreme Court refers matter to DIAC for appointment of sole arbitrator","author":"Apoorva","date":"November 14, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cWe have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of either party including regarding the arbitrability of the dispute. All contentions and pleas are kept open for the parties to raise before the arbitral tribunal.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Appointment of Arbitrator","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/Media-_12_.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/Media-_12_.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/Media-_12_.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/Media-_12_.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":324535,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/17\/del-hc-appoints-sole-arbitrator-despite-clause-specifying-two-arbitrators-upholds-parties-intention-to-arbitrate-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":300002,"position":3},"title":"Delhi High Court appoints sole arbitrator despite clause specifying two arbitrators; Upholds parties’ intention to arbitrate","author":"Editor","date":"June 17, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court noted Arbitration agreement specifying an even number of arbitrators cannot be a ground to render the arbitration agreement invalid. Appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) petition.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":367145,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/19\/delhi-hc-on-validity-of-unilateral-appointment-of-sole-arbitrator\/","url_meta":{"origin":300002,"position":4},"title":"‘Letter consenting to unilateral appointment of sole arbitrator doesn’t constitute waiver under Sec. 12 (5) of Arbitration Act’: Delhi HC","author":"Editor","date":"November 19, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cAt best, the letter consenting to appointment of sole arbitrator, was a conditional acceptance of the appointment of a sole arbitrator. The condition being that the sole arbitrator would adjudicate the disputes between the petitioner and both the respondents.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"unilateral appointment of sole arbitrator","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/unilateral-appointment-of-sole-arbitrator.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/unilateral-appointment-of-sole-arbitrator.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/unilateral-appointment-of-sole-arbitrator.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/unilateral-appointment-of-sole-arbitrator.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":325118,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/26\/jhc-during-appointment-of-arbitrator-u-s-11-of-arbitration-act-required-to-look-only-into-existence-of-arbitration-clause\/","url_meta":{"origin":300002,"position":5},"title":"Court is required to look only into existence of the arbitration clause at the stage of appointing arbitrator u\/s 11 of Arbitration Act: Jharkhand HC","author":"Arushi","date":"June 26, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The respondent raised an objection to the maintainability of the present application on the ground that the petitioner being an agent governed under Section 48 of the Bihar Cooperative Societies Act, 1935, was required to approach the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies for initiating a dispute resolution proceeding.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Jharkhand High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Jharkhand-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Jharkhand-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Jharkhand-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Jharkhand-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/300002","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=300002"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/300002\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/294411"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=300002"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=300002"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=300002"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}