Section 21 of the Arbitration Act Ignored. Should’ve sought court intervention : Delhi HC

Last Updated on September 11, 2024 by Shianjany Pradhan

The bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar of the Delhi H.C. held that if a party that has sought arbitration faces a situation where the opposing party does not respond to a section 21 notice or refuses to agree to arbitration, then the only possible solution is approaching the court under section 11(5) or Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as per the circumstances.

The court held that a party cannot unilaterally grant the jurisdiction to the arbitrator, even if the arbitrator has already been named.

Also, the opposite party cannot be independently summoned by the arbitrator.

The HC noted that the petitioner’s request for the arbitrator’s appointment was misplaced.

One, Atul Kumar was the arbitrator as per the lease deed.

It was held that it is the failure of the petitioner to not approach the court under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration Act.

The unilateral notice that the arbitrator issued was considered as an error.

The court highlighted that the correct procedure would have been to approach the court if the party had not responded.

The court found that the steps taken by the arbitrator were not seen as the arbitrator was legally ineligible.

The High Court decided to reappoint the arbitrator to address the disputes between the parties.