DELHI HIGH COURT ALLOWS SECTION 11(6) PETITION: COURT HAS AUTHORITY TO APPOINT SOLE ARBITRATOR EVEN THOUGH ARBITRATION AGREEMENT SPECIFIED THREE-MEMBER TRIBUNAL

The Delhi High Court in the case M/S TwentyFour Secure Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Competent Automobiles Company Limited observed and has rejected the contention that the court lacked the authority to appoint a sole arbitrator, even though the arbitration agreement specified a three-member tribunal.

- 

The bench headed by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna was hearing the present matter.

The bench in the case observed and has held that because the parties have not been able to arrive at the name of an arbitrator, the petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was not premature and was maintainable under the law.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The petitioner was engaged in the business of providing seamless security solutions, was approached by the Respondent to deploy security personnel at various dealership sites.

The Services Agreement was entered between the parties, for a term of one year from August 16, 2020 to August 15, 2021, which was subsequently extended from August 16, 2021.

The Respondent terminated the security services of the Petitioner on December 02, 2022 and provided a month's notice with termination effective and assured settlement of payments by that date. Thus, the Petitioner acknowledged this termination.