AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
13 paragraphs · 230 wordsC. Hari Shankar, J
These are petitions under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, for appointment of an arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes
between the parties. The gist of the disputes stand set out in the petitions and, to avoid prolixity, I do not deem it necessary to make reference thereto.
Learned Counsel for the respondents have no objection to the disputes being referred to an arbitrator to be appointed by the Delhi International
Arbitration Centre who would arbitrate on the disputes under the aegis of the DIAC as per its rules and regulations.
Accordingly, the disputes in both these petitions are referred for arbitration to an arbitrator to be appointed by the DIAC. The DIAC, while doing
so, may consider the possibility of appointing the same arbitrator to arbitrate in both the matters, as the principal amount involved in Arb.P.250/2021 is
less than ₹ 10 lakhs.
The parties may contact the coordinating officer in the DIAC within 48 hours of receipt, by e-mail, of a copy of this order from the Registry of this
Court.
The arbitrator, needless to say, would arbitrate in accordance with the rules and regulations of the DIAC and the fees of the arbitrator would also
be fixed according to the schedule of fees maintained by the DIAC.
Both the petitions stand disposed off accordingly.