#Appointment of Arbitrator

Delhi HC appoints sole arbitrator under Section 11 of Arbitration Act, 1996; inquiry limited to prima facie arbitration agreement; claim Rs.85,35,069/-.

MP High Court rules that objections regarding limitation and contractual bars (e.g., Clause 65 of GCC) must be adjudicated by the arbitrator, not dismissed at the appointment stage. The ruling reinforces that courts under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act cannot preemptively decide merits like limitation or extinguishment of claims, preserving the arbitrator’s jurisdiction over disputes.

Patna High Court holds that mere allegations of fraud or contract non-compliance do not invalidate an arbitration clause, empowering courts to appoint arbitrators under Section 11(6) if the designated authority fails to act. This ruling reinforces the primacy of arbitration agreements in commercial disputes, ensuring parties cannot evade arbitration through procedural objections.

Patna High Court holds that failure of a government department to respond to arbitration appointment notices under a construction contract amounts to a deemed refusal, empowering courts to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6). The ruling clarifies that contractual dispute resolution exhaustion includes administrative inaction, impacting contractors in government contracts.

MP High Court rules that when a court grants liberty to arbitrate while excluding the limitation period, objections on limitation must be decided by the arbitrator, not the court. This reinforces the kompetenz-kompetenz principle, shifting the burden of limitation disputes to arbitration proceedings where prior litigation excluded the relevant period.

Telangana High Court holds that failure to file counter affidavit despite repeated adjournments permits appointment of independent arbitrator under Section 11(5)&(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.