<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<root>
    <author>ENA</author>
    <category>Sectors</category>
    <date>2024-07-04 16:45:09</date>
    <fulldesc>&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;New Delhi, Jul 4 (KNN)&lt;/strong&gt; In a significant ruling, the Jharkhand High Court has upheld the validity of an arbitration agreement between Tata Steel Utilities and Infrastructure Services Limited (TSUISL) and Jharkhand Urban Infrastructure Development Company Limited (JUIDCO).&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;This ruling underscores the importance of written arbitration agreements in contract disputes and reinforces the court's role in facilitating the arbitration process when such agreements exist.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;In its ruling, the High Court cited that the court's primary duty under Section 11(6) is to confirm the existence of a written arbitration clause signed by both parties.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;The judgment, delivered by Acting Chief Justice Chandrashekhar on June 21, 2024, emphasises the court's role in verifying the existence of a written arbitration clause when considering applications under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;He stated,  In an application under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court is required to see whether there is an arbitration clause which as per section 7 should be a document in writing signed by the parties. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;The court appointed Devendra Kumar Tiwary, IAS (Retd.), former Chief Secretary of Jharkhand, as the Arbitrator. He is directed to commence proceedings within 30 days, with Ranchi designated as the seat of arbitration.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;The case arose from a dispute over the  Chakradharpur Urban Water Supply Scheme,  a project awarded to TSUISL in 2017. TSUISL alleged delays beyond the initial completion deadline, citing factors outside its control and claiming that JUIDCO had granted extensions.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;The company sought arbitration to resolve issues related to site clearances, certificates, and outstanding payments totalling over Rs. 12 crore.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;JUIDCO contested the arbitration request, arguing that no arbitral issues existed and that TSUISL's claims should be directed to the District Mineral Foundation Trust (DMFT) instead.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;(KNN Bureau)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
</fulldesc>
    <id>38479</id>
    <link>https://knnindia.co.in/news/newsdetails/sectors/jharkhand-hc-upholds-validity-of-written-arbitration-agreements-in-contract-disputes</link>
    <pubDate>2024-07-04 16:45:09</pubDate>
    <source>knnindia.co.in</source>
    <title>Jharkhand HC Upholds Validity of Written Arbitration Agreements in Contract Disputes</title>
</root>
