Non-Filing Of Application U/S 8 Arbitration Act Before Civil Court Does Not Debar Party From Seeking Appointment Of Arbitrator: J&K&L High Court

Post published: July 2, 2022
Post category:Daily Judgments / High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh
Reading time:3 mins read

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.”

Anita-Mehta-v-Gulkand-Hues-Private-Ltd.-another-2-July-3 Download

Previous posts

Compassionate Appointment Intended To Provide “Urgent Relief” To Bereaved Family: Gujarat High Court Refuses To Grant Benefit After 5 Yrs Of Death

J&K&L High Court Grants ₹5 Lakh Compensation To Reserved Category Candidate Denied Seat In NEET MDS 2021, Asks BOPEE To Keep One Seat In Next Session

Potential Cabinet Papers Yet To Be Brought Before Council Of Ministers Exempted From Disclosure Under RTI Act: Kerala High Court

Waiting List Can’t Be Used As ‘Reservoir’ To Fill Posts Falling Vacant Due To Resignation Of Selected Candidate: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Conviction Cannot Be Solely On Extra Judicial Confession Unless Supported By Chain Of Cogent Circumstances: Madras High Court

Govt Can’t Supersede Statutory Rules By Administrative Orders, May Fill Gaps With Consistent Instructions: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

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