Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Section 21, 11, 16, 7—Notice Invoking Arbitration—Appointment of Arbitrator—The mandatory nature of a Section 21 notice for commencing arbitration, the limited scope of judicial inquiry under Section 11 for appointing arbitrators, the arbitral tribunal's power to implead non-signatories based on their mutual intention to be bound by the arbitration agreement (Section 7), and the source of the tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 16—A Section 21 notice invoking arbitration is mandatory for commencing proceedings, fixing the date of commencement (crucial for limitation and applicable law), and as a prerequisite for a Section 11 application—However, non-service on a potential party does not automatically bar their subsequent impleadment by the arbitral tribun...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Section 11(6)—The court’s role in appointing an arbitrator is limited to examining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement, without delving into the merits of the underlying claims or the limitation period—The question of whether the underlying claims are time-barred is to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal, following the principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz—The referral court only examines if the Section 11 petition is filed within the limitation period (three years under Article 137 of the Limitation Act)—If a party does not dispute the existence or applicability of the arbitration clause but raises objections like waiver or time-bar later, it strengthens the prima facie existence of the arbitration agreement—Even if the claims appear time-barred...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Section 11(6)—The Court is tasked with examining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement when considering the appointment of an arbitrator—Issues regarding the capacity or authorization of a party to invoke arbitration are matters for the Arbitral Tribunal to address—A member or lead consultant of a consortium, which is party to an agreement containing an arbitration clause, can independently invoke arbitration unless explicitly restricted by the agreement—The Partnership Act, 1932, does not automatically impose restrictions on consortium members—Furthermore, a pre-arbitral mediation or conciliation clause is generally directory, not mandatory, and failure to exhaust such a mechanism does not preclude the initiation of arbitration—Additionally, ...

The Petitioner approached the Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve disputes under a Contract Agreement dated 26.08.2010 with the Respondents, concerning the construction of dwelling units at Naval Site Goa—Despite the final bill being submitted on 11.01.2024, the Respondents did not clear it, prompting the Petitioner to invoke arbitration under Clause 60 of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC)—The Court noted that Clause 61 of the GCC confers jurisdiction to the courts at the place of tender acceptance, which was Delhi, thus affirming the jurisdiction of this Court—Following the Supreme Court's ruling in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Limited and CORE v. ECI SPIC SMO MCML, which invalidated the automatic appoin...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 11—The court addressed the challenge to the appointment of an arbitrator—The applicants contended that the appointment of the named arbitrator was invalid, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC vs. HSCC (India) Limited, which held that a named arbitrator who is an interested party is unsustainable—The court concurred, stating that a person with an interest in the dispute outcome should not have the power to appoint the sole arbitrator—It emphasized the importance of impartial and independent arbitrators, especially in government contracts, as noted in a Law Commission report—The court set aside the contractual clause appointing the Principal Secretary/Secretary as arbitrator and appointed a retired judge as the sole arbitrator t...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Section 42—The dispute between Sh. Kashmir Singh, a Government Contractor, and the Telecom Department arose in Division Mandi Himachal Pradesh. Singh moved two Arbitration Cases under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the appointment of an arbitrator—The arbitrator passed separate awards directing the Telecom Department to pay Rs. 4,40,521/- and Rs. 2,26,554/-, respectively—The Department was also directed to refund the security amount within 30 days. Singh filed objections under Section 34 of the Act before the District Judge, Mandi—The District Judge held that the arbitrator was appointed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, which is vested with original civil jurisdiction—Therefore, all subsequent applications are required to be f...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 11(6)—Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 2(A)—Appointment of an arbitrator—This case revolves around the appellant’s termination and the dispute over the applicability of Clause 19 in the appointment order regarding non-disclosure obligations—The respondent issued a show cause notice and a charge memo but failed to substantiate any violation of Clause 19 in the termination order—The appellant’s termination was not based on the non-disclosure violation, which only emerged later as an afterthought—The appellant had previously approached the Industrial Tribunal under Section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, challenging the termination, which remains pending—Additionally, the appellant raised concerns over the arbitrator’s juris...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Sections 11(6)—The applicant filed an Arbitration Application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for the appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate disputes related to the work order dated 24.06.2020—The applicant claims to have been declared a successful bidder for outsourcing the operation and maintenance of BSNL CSCs at Visakhapatnam, but pending dues have not been paid—The agreement stipulates that disputes should be resolved through arbitration, with the Chief General Manager, A.P Telecom Circle/District, or his nominee, including any officer of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), nominated by the applicant—The arbitrator's orders and directions are final and binding on both parties, and the court has territorial jurisdiction to ...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Sections 12(5) and 18—Appointment of Arbitrators—Unilateral Appointment Invalid: The court held that any appointment process allowing one party with an interest in the dispute to unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator or curate a panel of arbitrators is invalid in law—Such a process violates the principle of equality under Section 18 of the Act and the independence and impartiality required under Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule—The court ruled that party autonomy in arbitration agreements is subject to the mandatory provisions of the Act, including independence and fairness of the tribunal—In public-private contracts, unilateral appointment by a government entity violates Article 14 of the Constitution—The court emphasized that equal participatio...

Arbitrator appointed. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 11—Application to appoint Arbitrator—Appeal by Applicant—The existence of the arbitration agreement in Clause 18.12 of the MSA has not been disputed by the respondent—The question whether there exists a valid dispute to be referred to arbitration can be addressed by the Arbitral Tribunal as a preliminary issue—As a result, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and the impugned order passed by the High Court of Bombay is hereby set aside—Arbitrator is appointed . (paras 21-23) Result:- Appeal allowed. ...

Arbitrator not appointed. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 11—Application to appoint Arbitrator—Petitioner herein and the respondent no. 1 company entered into a Consumer Distributorship Agreement dated 09.11.2010 (for short, the "Distributorship Agreement") inter-alia for the distribution of handsets which are manufactured by the respondent no. 1 and the same was executed by the parties in Kabul, Afghanistan. As per the terms of the aforesaid agreement, the petitioner herein became the authorized distributor of the respondent's products including mobile handsets and was granted a nonexclusive right to market and distribute the same under its own account in the territory of Afghanistan as allotted and delineated under the said agreement—For all the foregoing reasons, Court have reached the...

Appointment of Arbitrator. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Sections 11(6) , 16—Whether the Public Premises Act, 1971 overrides the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996— If the said question is answered in negative, the only question that survives is, whether the High Court committed any error in appointing the arbitrator—The appellant is a statutory body under the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962, and is under the administrative control of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Government of India—As it was providing warehousing facilities, the respondent, a company engaged in the business of trading ceramic tiles and sanitary ware, had approached the appellant for storage of its goods— Public Premises Act authorises the ejectment of a tenant in unauthorised occupation of public premises a...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Section 11—Appointment of Arbitrator—Disputes Involving SARFAESI Act and RDDBFI Act—The appellant sought the appointment of an arbitrator for disputes arising from a Sanction Letter dated August 19, 2019, concerning a Working Capital Demand Loan (WCDL) and other financial facilities provided to the respondent—The appellant argued for arbitration based on a valid arbitration agreement in the Sanction Letter—The respondent opposed, claiming the disputes were non-arbitrable due to the SARFAESI Act and the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDDBFI Act), and that the appellant had waived its right to arbitration by pursuing other legal remedies—The court examined whether the arbitration agreement was valid and whether the disputes...

Appointment of Arbitrator. Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 11—Appointment of Arbitrator—Respondents have raised a number of objections against the present petition, however, none of the objections raised question or deny the existence of the arbitration agreement under which the arbitration has been invoked by the petitioner in the present case—Thus, the requirement of prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement, as stipulated under Section 11 of the Act, 1996, is satisfied—Once the arbitral tribunal is constituted, it shall be open for the respondents to raise all the available objections in law, and it is only after (and if) the preliminary objections are considered and rejected by the tribunal that it shall proceed to adjudicate the claims of the petitioner. (Paras 32,33) Resul...

Power of Arbitration Tribunal.  Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 11(6)—Application to appoint Arbitrator—Defence of  the execution of a discharge voucher towards the full and final settlement between the parties would operate as a bar to invoke arbitration—Whether a compromise exhausted the cause of action, the arbitration tribunal only has the power to determine this point, not the referrel court—Once an arbitration agreement exists between parties, then the option of approaching the civil court becomes unavailable to them—In such a scenario, if the parties seek to raise a dispute, they necessarily have to do so before the arbitral tribunal—The arbitral tribunal, in turn, can only be constituted as per the procedure agreed upon between the parties—However, if there is ...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Section 11—Petition for appointment of a sole arbitrator, DLF Limited sought resolution of disputes arising from a loan agreement and share pledge agreement, implicating PNB Housing Finance Limited (PNBHFL) and others—Key issues included the legal implications of DLF's acceptance of a proposal to sell JHL shares and the validity of pledge invocation and debt assignment by PNBHFL, amidst allegations of collusion—DLF argued that the arbitration clause extended to non-signatories, alleging collusive assignment to Omkara—Respondents contended disputes were non-arbitrable and governed by SARFAESI Act and RBI Master Directions—The court, analyzing under Section 11 of the A&C Act, emphasized determining arbitration agreement existence, scope, and binding effect on...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Section 11—Appointment of Arbitrator—Seeks the formation of an arbitral tribunal to address disputes stemming from an EPC agreement for a highway project—Despite attempts at conciliation, disputes regarding payment, land availability, and damages persisted—The agreement stipulated arbitration under the Society for Affordable Redressal of Disputes (SAROD) rules, requiring primary membership—However, the petitioner, not a SAROD member, proposed arbitration under the A&C Act—SAROD's insistence on membership breached the agreement, invoking court intervention under Section 11(6)(c) of the A&C Act—The court appointed a sole arbitrator, citing the Act's provision and contractual silence on arbitrator numbers—Parties share costs, and prel...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Section 11(6)—Seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from a contract—The petitioner asserts that despite serving a notice invoking arbitration and the respondent's acknowledgment, they failed to appoint an arbitrator—The respondent contends that the RailTel Corporation of India Ltd.has a specialized panel of arbitrators due to technical disputes—However, the court finds the panel proposed by the respondent lacking in being "broad-based" as required by legal precedents—Citing previous judgments, the court appoints a sole arbitrator, Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, to adjudicate the disputes under the auspices of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre—All rights and contentions of the parties are preserved for arbi...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996—Appointment of Arbitrator—Contract between the Appellant, a government undertaking, and the Respondent for weir construction—The main issue revolved around the applicability of an arbitration clause from tender documents to the contract, given modifications in the Letter of Intent (L.O.I.)—The Appellant argued for dispute resolution through Delhi’s civil courts per the L.O.I., while the Respondent insisted on applying the arbitration clause—The Court determined that a general reference to tender documents doesn't incorporate the arbitration clause into the contract—It discussed conditions for incorporating arbitration clauses from one document into another contract, emphasizing the need for a specific reference—Consequently, the Court ruled the arbit...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Sections 11(6) and 21—Appointment of Arbitrator—Appointment of an independent arbitrator for disputes arising from a contract, the court analyzed the arbitration clause (Clause 60 of the GCC) governing the appointment process—Despite the respondent's proposal of arbitrators from a Ministry of Defence (MOD) panel, the court found the panel restrictive and not sufficiently broad-based—Citing precedents like Voestalpine, it emphasized the need for a diverse panel including legal professionals—Therefore, the court appointed an independent arbitrator, Justice G—S—Sistani, to adjudicate the disputes—The arbitration will be conducted under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, with the arbitrator required to furnish a declaration u...

(A) Limitation Act, 1963—Section 43 and Article 137—Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Section 11(6)—Arbitration petition—Period of limitation—The law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights—Section 43 of the Act, 1996 provides that the Limitation Act, 1963 would apply to arbitrations as it applies to proceedings in court—There is no doubt as to the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 to arbitration proceedings in general and that of Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to a petition under Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996 in particular. (Paras 44, 45 and 50) (B)Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Section 11(6)—Limitation Act, 1963—Section Article 137—Appointment of Arbitrator—Period of limitation—The limita...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 11—Appointment of a sole arbitrator—Regarding a dispute with the respondent, South Eastern Railway, over a construction contract—The disagreement arose from a price variation clause—The respondent proposed arbitrators under Clause 64(3)(b)(ii) of the Standard General Conditions of Contract (GCC), which the petitioner contested—The court, considering Supreme Court decisions, rejected the unilateral appointment clause as lacking consent and choice, contrary to the Act's consensual framework—The court appointed a panel of three arbitrators, diverging from the respondent's preference for a single arbitrator, emphasizing fairness and independence in arbitration proceedings—The judgment refers to precedents, including Central Organisation for Railw...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Section 11 (6)—Lease agreement—Appointment of Arbitrator—The court, addressing the issue of successive suits by a landlord based on bona fide requirement or non-payment of rent, clarified that these are recurring causes of action—The court emphasized that a landlord can initiate new proceedings for eviction based on bona fide requirement, and the assessment of the ground's genuineness should rely on the current circumstances—In a case where the lease agreement mandates dispute resolution through arbitration, and as the lease's existence is undisputed, the court accepted the petition, acknowledging its merit—Disposed of. ...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 11(6), 7 and 11—Arbitration agreement—Seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve a dispute arising from a lease deed. The applicant argued that Clause 5 of the lease deed mandated arbitration, relying on a Supreme Court decision (Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation). The respondent countered that the clause provided an option for civil courts and did not constitute a valid arbitration agreement, citing Jagdish Chander v. Ramesh Chander. The court, considering settled principles from K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi and Jagdish Chander, concluded that the clause allowed for alternatives, including civil courts, and dismissed the application, emphasizing that no valid arbitration agreement existed. ...

(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961, Section 34—Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Section 13(1A)—Award—Appointment of Arbitrator—Where the appellant, a government enterprise, entered into an agreement with the respondent for a project. Disputes arose due to project delays, and an arbitrator was appointed to resolve the issues. The arbitrator's award partly favored both parties. The respondent challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, and the district judge partially set aside the award. The appellant appealed, arguing that the judge misconstrued a key letter and applied the law incorrectly. The judgment discusses the principles of setting aside arbitral awards and affirms that the court's role is limited to specific grounds and does not involve reviewing the merits of t...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 11(6),  12 (5)—Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5—Demanded license fees—Dispute between the petitioner, engaged in outdoor advertising, and the respondent, Jammu Municipal Corporation. The petitioner sought the appointment of an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The dispute arose when the respondent demanded license fees and subsequently removed advertising structures, leading to legal proceedings. The main contentions include the issue of limitation, with the petitioner arguing that the dispute remained within the contract's validity period, while the respondent claimed it was time-barred. The court determined that the claim was not manifestly time-barred and should be referred to arbitration. Additionally, the court wai...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 11—Design and construction of a Single Lane Bridge—Converting the single-lane bridge to a double-lane bridge—Petitioner sought the appointment of an arbitrator. The petitioner had originally been awarded a contract to construct a single lane bridge, and later, due to a public announcement, the project was expanded to a double lane bridge with administrative approval. The dispute arose when the authorities did not fully compensate the petitioner for the additional work. The respondents argued that there was no valid contract for the double lane bridge and, therefore, no valid arbitration agreement. The court held that the subsequent work for the double lane bridge was an integral part of the initial contract, making it amenable to arbitration. It referred the matter to an ar...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Section 11(6)—Appointment of arbitrator—Case, the appellant challenged the appointment of an arbitrator by the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court—The Division Bench of the Madras High Court had previously allowed the appeal and permitted parties to appoint a new arbitrator—Since the Chief Justice exercised powers under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Supreme Court upheld the appointment and dismissed the appeal—No one represented the respondent. ...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Sections 11 (6) and 12—Appointment of Sole Arbitrator—Application for—Objection about appointment of as per Clause 28 of conditions of Tender is based on statutory prohibition under Section 12 of Act—Determination of—Tender notice was issued by Government of India—For purchase of Glock pistols—Applicants bid accepted—Terms and conditions contained in Tender—Said Terms and conditions specifically provided for Arbitration as per Clause 28 of Schedule appended to Tender—Arbitration clause which authorises the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, whose relationship with Union of India is that an employee, to nominate an officer of Ministry of Law and Justice to act as a Sole Arbitrator, clearly falls within expressly ineligible category&md...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, specifically Section 11(6), — Where the appointment of an arbitrator was sought, it was noted that the encashment of a bank guarantee occurred in 2016, resulting in the transfer of the required amount to the Government account. This event marked the conclusive resolution of the matter. Therefore, this "Breaking Point" should be recognized as the date from which the cause of action for the purpose of limitation arises. — It was emphasized that negotiations, even if protracted over many years, do not extend the "cause of action" beyond the statutory limit of three years for claim enforcement set by the legislature. Consequently, the petition was rejected. ...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Section 11—Appointment of arbitrator—Appellant in this case is dissatisfied with the High Court's dismissal of their application under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, 1996—The dispute arose from a construction agreement—The High Court refused to appoint an arbitrator, citing that the appellant had accepted the final payment without dispute and issued a "no further claim" certificate—The main issue is the interpretation of Section 26 of the Amendment Act, 2015, and whether the Amendment Act, 2015, applies to the case—The appellant relies on previous decisions, including Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) vs. Kochi Cricket Private Limited, to argue for the applicability of the Amendment Act, 2015. ...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Section 11(6)—Appointment of Arbitrator—The court should intervene at the referral stage only in cases where it is glaringly evident that the claims are patently time-barred or non-existent, or where there is no existing dispute to arbitrate. In situations involving questions of limitation, these issues should be referred to the Arbitral Tribunal for a thorough examination on the merits—The same principle applies when there are disputes related to a "no-claim certificate" or when defenses like novation and "accord and satisfaction" are raised. In these instances, it is not within the court's purview to make definitive findings but rather to allow the Arbitrator to make decisions based on a comprehensive assessment of the facts—Therefore, the High ...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 199—Section 11(6)—Appointment of arbitrator—Share Subscription and Shareholders Agreement—The High Court had declined to refer the dispute between the parties for arbitration and appoint an arbitrator. The primary reason for this refusal was that proceedings initiated by the respondent, who was a minority shareholder, were pending before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The respondent's claim was related to allegations of oppression and mismanagement—In light of the ongoing NCLT proceedings, the High Court concluded that the application under Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996 could not be entertained. However, this decision was found to be erroneous—The appellate authority found that the High Court had made a mistake by dismissing the application under Section...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Section 11(6)—Appointment of arbitrator—Without conducting the necessary initial inquiry and despite recognizing the party's right to seek relief in court under Clause 36, the arbitrator was appointed solely on the basis that it doesn't preclude dispute resolution through the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The matter is remanded to the High Court to reconsider the application under Section 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration Act, conducting a preliminary assessment to determine whether the dispute is arbitrable and whether it falls within the scope of Clause 36 of the Addendum Agreement. An appropriate order should be passed thereafter. ...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Section 11(6)—Appointment of Arbitrator—The disputes between the parties regarding the renewal or non-renewal of the lease, the duration of renewal, and the rent amount fall within the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court made an error in dismissing the Appellant's application under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act for the appointment of an Arbitrator. It is evident that disputes arising from the non-renewal of the lease are subject to arbitration."     ...

A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Section 11—Appointment of Arbitrator — dispute falls within the category of "excepted matters," any decision made by the General Manager regarding Notified Claims cannot be subject to arbitration. These "excepted matters" do not require further adjudication as the agreement designates a specific adjudicator. The parties' unequivocal acceptance of the contract terms implies their concurrence with this arrangement. Therefore, the courts lack jurisdiction to entertain arbitration applications for disputes falling under these "excepted matters," as the parties have chosen a specific officer to resolve them, typically outlined in the contract documents. B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Section 11—Appointment of Arbitrator&...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) — Appointment of Arbitrator — Application has been filed for appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act, before the High Court the respondents forfeited their right to appoint an Arbitrator under the clause of arbitration thereafter but from the narration of facts which has been noticed — No error was committed by the High Court in dismissing the petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Act for appointment of an Arbitrator — Appeal dismissed. — Once an application under Section 11(6) of the Act has been filed for appointment of an Arbitrator before the High Court, the respondents forfeited their right to appoint an Arbitrator and the High Court alone holds jurisdiction to appoint an Arbitrator in exercise of power under Section 11(6) of th...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Sections 18, 19, 24, 25, 29A, 34, and 37—Appointment of Arbitrator for Resolution of Disputes—Contract for the construction of an additional washing line to accommodate 26 coaches at a Railway Station— Contract Termination due to Non-performance and Repeated Lapses—The appellant alleged breaches on the part of the respondent, contending that they had altered the original work and changed the scope of the project on multiple occasions—Section 19 of the Act specifies that the arbitral tribunal is not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. However, in the absence of an agreement between the parties on the procedure to be followed, the arbitral tribunal is empowered to conduct the proceedings in the manner it deems suitable. Secti...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Sections 11(6), 14, 21(a), 25(c), Sec 26, Sec 11(1)—Arbitration and Conciliation Act, (Amendment) Act, 2015—Section 26—Appointment of an arbitrator—The Superintendent Engineer, Arbitration Circle, HPPWD, had been appointed as the sole arbitrator, and it was argued that this appointment was not in compliance with clause (65) of the agreement—However, the court determined that clause (65) allowed for the appointment of an arbitrator by designation, and it also provided for the appointment of a new arbitrator if the original one vacated office—Therefore, the termination of arbitral proceedings by the arbitrator was set aside, and the Chief Engineer, Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department, was directed to appoint an arbitrator in accordance with clause (65) of ...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Order 27 Rule 5—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226, Article 227—Appointment of arbitrator—Granted leave to appeal against a High Court judgment—The case involves a dispute between a government-owned company and the state regarding land disposal, which will now be resolved through arbitration. ...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Section 11(6)—Appointment of Arbitrator—When an insurer disputes liability under an insurance policy, there can be no reference to an arbitrator—Parties must adhere to the clauses in the policy, and courts cannot alter these clauses through equity—Arbitration clauses are strictly construed, and if circumstances clearly indicate that arbitration is not appropriate, disputes regarding arbitrator appointments should be resolved—The only remedy for the respondent in such cases is to file a civil suit to address their grievances. ...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11, Section 2(4), Section 2(d)—Dispute related to the appointment of an arbitrator for a 'works contract' under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was resolved by a three-judge bench—They held that the State Act, M.P—Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, should apply even after termination of the contract, rejecting a contrary view—Several related appeals were also disposed of accordingly—Some special leave petitions were dismissed, while others were allowed, and a few matters were listed for further consideration on a specified date ...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 7(5) Section 11 (6) —Secondary document refers generally to an earlier contract and not specific standard terms, it creates a two-contract scenario, making arbitration clause incorporation insufficient—However, if the reference relates to standard terms, even if not by a trade or professional body, it's considered a single contract, allowing the general reference to incorporate the arbitration clause—In this case, the respondent was aware of the standard terms attached to the purchase order, and thus, an arbitrator was appointed. ...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11 – Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Section 38 – Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 – Sections 33 and 37 – Appointment of Arbitrator – Conducting Agreement – There is a written instrument and there is dispute as regards nature and character of document – Section 33 empowers Judge of High Court to delegate duty of examination and impounding instrument to such officer as Court appoints in that behalf – However, delegation by a Judge of High Court will not clothe the officer jurisdiction of determining nature and character of the instrument inasmuch as such fact needs to be determined by Judge while exercising judicial function – What is delegated under the proviso (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 33 is only to examine instrument for the purp...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Section 11(5)—Arbitration-Appointment of Arbitrator—Expressed their willingness to negotiate an amicable settlement with the petitioner and committed to either finalize a settlement or submit objections to the petition for the appointment of an arbitrator within four weeks—However, neither a settlement nor a response to the arbitration petition was achieved—It was undisputed that there existed an arbitration agreement between the parties, and disputes had arisen—Since a mutual settlement was not feasible, the Court appointed Mr. Justice FM Ibrahim Kalifulla, a former judge of the Supreme Court of India, as the sole arbitrator in accordance with the arbitration agreement—The arbitrator was granted the authority to determine his fees for the arbitration—I...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Section 11(5) read with Section 11(12)—Appointment of Arbitrator—Payment dispute—legal matter, the question of whether the petitioner has provided services as outlined in the agreement, and if those services were adequate and satisfactory, can only be determined by an Arbitrator—Similarly, the issue of whether the petitioner's claim is time-barred cannot be addressed in the current proceedings and should be left to be raised before the Arbitrator—The petitioner has established a valid case for the appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve these disputes—Therefore, the petition has been allowed. ...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Section 11(6)—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 133—Appointment of Arbitrator—Designated by the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court approved an application by the respondent under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, appointing a retired District and Sessions Judge as the sole arbitrator—However, the law stipulates that if the arbitration agreement's specified time period expires or, in the absence of such a period, after 30 days of receiving a notice for the appointment of an arbitrator, the aggrieved party can approach the court under Section 11 of the Act—This results in the forfeiture of the right to make an appointment as per the arbitration agreement—The appellant argued that the requirement of issuing ...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Section 11—Appointment of Arbitrator—Chief Justice holds the authority to exercise judicial power when issuing an order under Section 11, which allows examination of whether a claim brought before them is still valid and requires adjudication—If the Chief Justice determines that the claim is clearly time-barred and does not warrant a detailed evaluation of evidence, they can reject the application, deeming the claim as "dead." ...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 11 — Arbitration — Appointment of Arbitrator — Jurisdiction of Court under Section 11 of the Act is limited and confine to examine as to whether there is an arbitration agreement between the contracting parties and, if so, whether any dispute has arisen between them out of such agreement which may call for appointment of arbitrator to decide such disputes — Learned Single Judge has elaborately discussed the issues touching the merits of the controversy relating to the agreement and did exceed his jurisdiction — Arbitrator while deciding the disputes between the parties in arbitration proceedings would not, in any manner, be influenced by any finding, observations made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order — Since appellant has reservation about...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Section 11(6)—Appointment of Arbitrator—Respondent did not contest the request for the appointment of an arbitrator, as stipulated in the arbitration clause within the Engagement Letter—The petitioner's contention is that they had asked the respondent to nominate an arbitrator to resolve the disputes between them, but the respondent failed to do so—Consequently, the petitioner had no choice but to seek the appointment of an arbitrator through the court under Section 11(6) of the Act—The court, in response to the petition, appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. Section Bedi, a former Judge of the Supreme Court of India, as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate on the disputes between the parties—The arbitrator is empowered to issue notices to the parties regardi...

Contractual dispute between M/s AK & I Advertising Pvt. Ltd. and the appellants, the responsibility for handling advertising work was at the core. If the parties failed to agree on an arbitrator within 30 days of one party's request, Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 could be invoked to seek a High Court's direction for an arbitrator's appointment. The High Court's decision to appoint an arbitrator was inappropriate, and the impugned order has been set aside. As a result, the appeal has been allowed. ...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Section 11(6)—Appointment of Arbitrator—Case presented, two applications were filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from a Share Purchase Agreement and a License Royalty Agreement—The petitioner alleged misrepresentations and breaches of the agreements by the respondents—Despite notice, the respondents did not appoint an arbitrator, leading to the court appointing Justice A.K—Patnaik as the arbitrator on behalf of both respondents—The arbitration proceedings would commence promptly—The court's decision allowed the arbitration petitions.   ...

Appointment of Arbitrator—Respondent Corporation to make appointment of an Arbitrator from a panel of three names that was furnished to the Respondent Corporation or to independently appoint an arbitrator—works contract was executed between the petitioner and the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, which led to disputes—The arbitration clause in the agreement outlined a specific procedure for appointing arbitrators—The respondent corporation did not follow this procedure and appointed an arbitrator on its own—The petitioner filed an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to challenge this appointment—The court ruled that the appointment of the arbitrator by the respondent corporation was invalid, and a new arbitrator was appointed in accordance with the agreed proce...

Arbitration Act, 1940—Section 16, Section 16(2), Section 16(3), Section 2, Section 20, Section 33, Section 4, Section 5, Section 8—Distinction between expert determination and arbitration in contractual disputes was highlighted. The Chief Engineer or Designated Officer was not considered an independent authority but had overall supervision and charge of executing the work. They were not required to hear parties or take evidence and were not invested with the power to adjudicate on the rights of the parties involved in the dispute. The decision of the Chief Engineer or Designated Officer was treated as binding on the contractor, subject to their right to seek a remedy in a court of law. The appeals were partly dismissed with liberty for the parties to avail appropriate legal remedies for the recovery of the amount. ...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Section 11(6)—Appointment of Arbitrator—Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a nominee arbitrator on behalf of the respondent and the appointment of a third arbitrator (presiding arbitrator) to adjudicate disputes between the parties—The respondent raised preliminary objections, contending that the claims were barred by a long period of time and were thus "dead claims." The court considered the relevant events, including notices and correspondence between the parties—The court concluded that it was best to leave certain matters, such as whether the claims were time-barred, to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal and proceeded to constitute the entire Arbitral Tribunal. ...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Section 11—Appointment of Arbitrator—This case involves a dispute between two brothers who were partners in a business. The partnership agreement dated 12.6.1988 stated that the death of a partner wouldn't dissolve the firm. The appellant claimed that he and his brother continued the business with different profit-sharing ratios, but the first respondent alleged that new partnership deeds were executed in 1991 and 2000, reducing the appellant's share. The appellant denied the existence of these deeds. The first respondent sought to appoint an arbitrator under the alleged 2000 deed, which the appellant contested. The court ruled that the Chief Justice or his designate must decide the existence of an arbitration agreement before appointing an arbitrator and remitted th...

Arbitration Act, 1940—Section 8—Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Section 11—Against the respondent, an Indian government enterprise, for non-payment of invoices—Despite a valid arbitration clause appointing the respondent's Managing Director or nominee as arbitrator, the petitioner contends bias due to the MD's governmental position—The respondent cites governmental directives for non-payment—The court acknowledges a genuine dispute and appoints an independent arbitrator, Justice Arijit Pasayat (Retired), considering the MD's potential lack of independence—This decision aligns with legal precedent allowing intervention when appointed arbitrator's impartiality is questionable—The arbitrator is granted autonomy in determining remuneration and other arbitration terms...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Section 11(6)—Appointment of Arbitrator—It was solely on respondent to select person from panel of three persons in event petitioner had failed to select any one of persons named by respondent. It was open to respondent to select any one from panel sent by respondent after expiry of period for selecting a person by petitioner. No reason to replace appointed arbitrator at this stage when admittedly no allegations have been put forward by petitioner against such appointment. Application rejected. ...

Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Section 11, Section 5—Appointment of arbitrator—Dispute resolution matter, a general condition mandated referring all disputes to the Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent-company—The appellant contested this, arguing that the named arbitrator lacked independence—However, the court dismissed the appeal, rejecting the plea that the Chairman and Managing Director couldn't be considered independent—The court found no basis for the apprehension that the designated arbitrator would not act fairly—Consequently, the order was upheld, affirming the validity of appointing the Chairman and Managing Director as the arbitrator in accordance with the stipulated condition, and dismissing the appeal against ...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Section 11, Section 11(6), Section 16—Income Tax Act, 1961—Section 148—Appointment of arbitrator—Dispute over the appointment of an arbitrator, the obligation to pay tax, initially assumed by TNPWD as part of the agreement, becomes a point of contention—The petitioner receives an additional tax demand notice from the Income-tax Department, promptly settles it, yet faces resistance from the respondent to resolve the controversy and proceed with arbitration—Despite completing the contracted work and making the final payment in January 2003, the enforceable arbitration agreement persists due to the unresolved dispute arising from an Income Tax notice in February 2004—The court allows the appeal, recognizing the ongoing contractual disagreement. ...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Section 11(6), Section 11(8), Section 16, Section 34, Section 37—Appointment of Arbitrator—Matters involving arbitration clauses, the Chief Justice of the High Court and Supreme Court wield substantial powers. When the High Court issues an order directing the submission of a matter to the Chief Justice for arbitrator nomination, the court's decision is binding. Even if the High Court rejects a petition seeking order recall, parties, as per the SBP & Co. vs. Patel Engineering Ltd. judgment (2005) 8 SCC 618, must nominate their arbitrators within 30 days. Subsequently, the Chief Justice of the High Court is mandated to nominate a Presiding Arbitrator, typically a retired Judge from any High Court. This framework ensures a streamlined arbitration process under the oversight of ...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Section 11, Section 11(2), Section 11(4), Section 11(5), Section 11(6), Section 34, Section 34(3)—Arbitration agreement, a clause designates a Corporation officer as the sole arbitrator, with a stipulation that the vendor cannot object on the basis of the arbitrator's corporate affiliation—The vendor seeks a retired Supreme Court Judge as the arbitrator, citing potential bias or lack of impartiality—The court rejects the plea, stating that parties, having entered the agreement willingly, cannot later escape its terms—Any concerns about bias should be addressed through a Section 34 application to set aside the award, affirming the sanctity of agreed-upon arbitration terms. ...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Section 11—Appointment of arbitrator—Appeals pertain to a writ petition in which the High Court of Andhra Pradesh appointed an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—The Supreme Court noted that all issues raised in the High Court's order had been previously decided by the Supreme Court in the case of S.B.P. and Co. Vs. Patel Engineering Ltd. and Another—Therefore, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal in light of the earlier decision—Another appeal involved a dispute between the Union of India and V.S. Engineering regarding a railway construction contract—The High Court appointed an arbitrator despite the General Manager of the Railway having already constituted an Arbitral Tribunal—The Supreme Court, relying o...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Section 11, Section 11(6),—Appointment of arbitrator—an arbitrator for a dispute involving a Singaporean company (petitioner) and Russian Technologies, now ROSOBORONEXPORT (respondent)—The petitioner claimed commission for facilitating a helicopter supply contract between ROSOBORONEXPORT and the Indian government—The dispute arose over the alleged denial of commission by ROSOBORONEXPORT—The petitioner approached the Supreme Court, arguing potential injustice in Russian arbitration—However, the Court, citing the specific arbitration clause in the Agency Agreement designating the Chamber of Commerce and Trade of the Russian Federation as the arbitration authority, held that it lacked jurisdiction—The Court emphasized the binding nature of the arbitral tri...

Limitation Act, 1963—Article 119—Supreme Court has clarified the implications of appointing an arbitrator without the consent of the other party in construction contracts with arbitration clauses—In a case where the respondent unilaterally appointed an arbitrator without the appellant's consent, the Court held the resulting award void ab initio.The Court emphasized that parties must adhere to the arbitration agreement, and if an arbitrator is named in the contract, that appointment binds the parties—If the contract doesn't specify an arbitrator, the appointment should be by mutual consent, and if there's no agreement, the court intervenes.In this case, the unilateral appointment and reference were declared illegal, and the resulting award was deemed a nullity—The Court clarified that mere inaction...

Succession Act, 1925—Section—276—Appointment of arbitrator—Appeal arising from a revision petition related to proceedings before the Sixth Additional District Judge, Indore, in the context of disputes over the distribution of the property left by the deceased Ram Lal—The parties had appointed arbitrators, but upon discovering a will executed by Ram Lal, some parties sought probate, leading to proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act—The District Court stayed the arbitration proceedings, an order later set aside by the High Court—Despite ongoing probate proceedings, the High Court directed the appointment of arbitrators, asserting that no clash would occur—While rejecting the appeal, the Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court's order was justified, but criticized an unnec...

Arbitration Act, 1940—Section 8—Appointment of arbitrator—Limitation - Appellant's application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act for the appointment of an arbitrator—The contract between the parties, dated September 7, 1974, led to disputes, prompting the appellant to issue a notice on September 12, 1976, appointing an arbitrator—Following failed negotiations, the appellant filed an application under Section 8 on December 22, 1977, which was initially rejected by the Calcutta High Court, directing the appellant to approach the appropriate court—The appellant refiled the application on August 9, 1978, before the Subordinate Judge, Ranchi, which was granted on September 18, 1979—The arbitrator awarded a small amount on June 16, 1980—The respondent challenged the application's...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Section—11(9), 11(5)—Appointment of Arbitrator in International Commercial Dispute—International commercial arbitration between an American corporation and an Indian company, the court determined that an arbitrator with neither Indian nor American nationality must be appointed, in the absence of any agreement between the parties—Recognizing the impracticality and expense of arbitration in a location like Paris, the court emphasized the need for a neutral arbitrator—This decision aimed to ensure fairness and impartiality in the arbitration process—The court directed the office to inform the concerned parties about the appointment of the arbitrator, who would oversee the arbitration proceedings in accordance with the court's order—This ruling undersco...