Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from an arbitration agreement between two companies regarding the lease of Space Segment Capacity. The petitioner, Antrix Corporation Limited, terminated the agreement with the respondent, Devas Multimedia P. Ltd., leading to a disagreement over the arbitration process. Devas invoked the arbitration clause and approached the ICC for the appointment of an arbitrator, while Antrix sought to appoint its own arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court was tasked with determining whether Antrix could invoke Section 11 after Devas had already initiated arbitration proceedings under ICC Rules. The court analyzed the arbitration agreement, emphasizing that once one party invoked the ICC Rules and appointed an arbitrator, the other party could not seek a second appointment under Section 11. The court concluded that the proper procedure must be adhered to as per the arbitration agreement, and the petition was dismissed, allowing the petitioner to seek relief through other provisions of the Act. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Appointment of Arbitrator - Jurisdiction under Section 11 - Invocation of ICC Rules - Once an arbitration clause has been invoked by one party, the other party cannot invoke Section 11 for appointment of an arbitrator. The court held that the proper procedure must be followed as per the arbitration agreement, and the invocation of ICC Rules by one party precludes the other from seeking a second appointment under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. (Paras 32-34).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be invoked after one party has already invoked ICC Rules for arbitration.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the Arbitration Petition No. 20 of 2011 under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, ruling that once the arbitration clause had been invoked by Devas, Antrix could not seek a second appointment of an arbitrator. The court emphasized that the proper procedure must be followed as per the arbitration agreement.
Law Points
- Arbitration Agreement
- Appointment of Arbitrator
- Section 11
- ICC Rules
- UNCITRAL Rules
- Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal
- Kompetenz Kompetenz principle
Case Details
2013 LawText (SC) (05) 71
Arbitration Petition No. 20 of 2011
Altamas Kabir, Surinder Singh Nijjar
Antrix Corporation Limited
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Dispute over arbitration proceedings following termination of an agreement.
Remedy Sought
Antrix Corporation Limited sought the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11.
Filing Reason
Devas invoked arbitration unilaterally without following the mediation process.
Issues
Whether Section 11 can be invoked after ICC Rules have been invoked by one party.
Whether the Chief Justice can appoint an arbitrator when one has already been appointed.
Submissions/Arguments
Antrix argued that Devas' unilateral invocation of ICC Rules was invalid and sought to appoint its own arbitrator.
Devas contended that it had properly invoked the arbitration clause and appointed its nominee arbitrator.
Ratio Decidendi
Once an arbitration clause has been invoked by one party, the other party cannot invoke Section 11 for appointment of an arbitrator. The court held that the proper procedure must be followed as per the arbitration agreement, and the invocation of ICC Rules by one party precludes the other from seeking a second appointment under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Judgment Excerpts
Once the Arbitration Agreement had been invoked by Devas and a nominee Arbitrator had also been appointed by it, the Arbitration Agreement could not have been invoked for a second time by the Petitioner.
The invocation of the ICC Rules would, of course, be subject to challenge in appropriate proceedings but not by way of an application under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act.
The law is well settled that where an Arbitrator had already been appointed and intimation thereof had been conveyed to the other party, a separate application for appointment of an Arbitrator is not maintainable.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed an application under Section 11(4) and Section 11(10) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The application was initially heard by a designate of the Chief Justice and subsequently referred to a larger bench for determination of legal questions.
Acts & Sections
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 11, Section 2, Section 5, Section 16, Section 34
