Is there any difference and distinction between sub-section (5) of section 11 and sub-section (6) of section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996? – Swadesh Kumar Agarwal Vs. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal & Ors, etc., etc. – Supreme Court
May 5, 2022
The following questions arise for consideration: (i) Whether the High Court in exercise of powers under section 11(6) of the Act, 1996, can terminate the mandate of the sole arbitrator? (ii) Whether in the absence of any written contract containing the arbitration agreement, the application under section 11(6) of the Act, 1996 would be maintainable? (iii) Is there any difference and distinction between sub-section (5) of section 11 and sub-section (6) of section 11 of the Act, 1996? (iv) Whether the application under sub-section (6) of section 11 shall be maintainable in a case where the parties themselves appointed a sole arbitrator with mutual consent? (v) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court was justified in terminating the mandate of the sole arbitrator on the ground that there was undue delay on the part of the sole arbitrator in concluding the arbitration proceedings which would lead to the termination of his mandate, in an application under section 11(6) of the Act, 1996? (vi) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Trial Court was justified in dismissing the application submitted by the appellant, submitted to reject the application under section 14(2) of the Act, 1996 in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC?