Non-Filing Of Application U/S 8 Arbitration Act Before Civil Court Does Not Debar Party From Seeking Appointment Of Arbitrator
Case: Anita Mehta v Gulkand Hues Private Ltd., & another
Coram: Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal
Case No.: Arb P No.6/2020
Court Observation: “In view of Section 11(6A) of the Act, the Chief Justice or his designate in considering a petition for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act is supposed to only examine as to the existence of the arbitration agreement pertaining to the disputes raised between the parties and that all other issues have to be left to be adjudicated upon by the arbitrator.”
“The High Court erred in dismissing the petition for appointment of an arbitrator on the ground that the claim was barred by limitation as such a preliminary objection ought to have been left to be decided by the arbitrator and that the court was only required to determine the existence of the arbitration agreement and if it so existed, it was bound to appoint an arbitrator.”
Previous posts
No Absolute Right Under RTE Act For Admission To Unaided Minority Schools: Bombay High Court
ESI Act Applicable To BCCI As Its Activities Are Commercial In Nature: Bombay High Court
Company Tribunal Not A Labour Court Or Administrative Tribunal To Focus Entirely On Removal Of Director: Supreme Court In Tata-Mistry Case Download Judgement
Previous Posts
Non-Filing Of Application, Appointment Of Arbitrator