In a significant legal case, Doordarshan has brought a request before the Supreme Court of India regarding the amendment of the arbitration agreement with HB & Entity. The dispute between the parties has led to this crucial legal proceeding. Follow along for more insights on this case as the Supreme Court’s judgement unfolds.
Facts
- The arbitration agreement initially provided for a three-member arbitral tribunal.
- During the hearing, all parties’ Counsels collectively requested a Sole Arbitrator instead of the three-member tribunal.
- The Counsel has filed an Application under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 on behalf of Doordarshan seeking the appointment of an Arbitrator by the Court.
Analysis
- Arbitration clause in the Contract between HB and the Entity referenced
- Dispute must be referred for Arbitration under the (Indian) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
- Conditions for arbitration highlighted
Also Read: CRPF Act: Validity of Rule 27 for Compulsory Retirement – Case of Head Constable vs. CRPF
Decision
- The Company and Respondent No. 2 entered into a contract with Doordarshan on 08.03.2010.
- The arbitration clause specifies New Delhi, India, as the seat of arbitration.
- Disputes arose, leading to arbitration invoked by the Company on 14.01.2019.
- The parties are directed to appear before the arbitrator on 15.11.2019 at 11 a.m.
- The arbitrator is requested to complete the proceedings within the time-limit specified under Section 29A.
Also Read: DAMEPL vs. DMRC: Curative Petition and Arbitral Award Restoration
Case Title: M/S SHAF BROADCAST PVT LTD Vs. DOORDARSHAN A CONSTITUENT OF PRASAR BHARTI
Case Number: ARBIT.CASE(C) No.-000036 / 2019
