Supreme Court Appoints Sole Arbitrator in Arbitration Dispute Over Purchase Order. The court determined that the Chairman-cum-Managing Director's role as arbitrator was inappropriate due to concerns of impartiality, necessitating the appointment of an independent arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from a Purchase Order issued by Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) to Bipromasz Bipron Trading SA for the supply of GYRO Units. The petitioner sought the appointment of an independent arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, after the respondent insisted that disputes be referred to its Chairman-cum-Managing Director or his nominee, as per the arbitration clause in the Purchase Order. The petitioner claimed that the respondent's actions in halting supplies and rejecting units were arbitrary and illegal, leading to the current arbitration petition. The respondent countered that the arbitration clause explicitly named its Chairman as the arbitrator, thus the petition was not maintainable. The court analyzed the communication of the appointment of the arbitrator and the implications of impartiality, ultimately deciding that the Chairman's involvement could lead to perceived bias, warranting the appointment of an independent arbitrator. The court emphasized that an order takes effect only upon communication to the affected party, and thus the petition was deemed maintainable despite the respondent's claims of prior appointment of an arbitrator. The court directed that an independent arbitrator be appointed to resolve the disputes.

Headnote

A) Arbitration Law - Appointment of Arbitrator - Impartiality Requirement - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 11 - The court held that the appointment of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director as arbitrator was inappropriate due to concerns of impartiality, necessitating the appointment of an independent arbitrator instead (Paras 22-40).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the disputes should be referred to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director or an independent arbitrator.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court held that the appointment of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director as arbitrator was inappropriate due to concerns of impartiality, necessitating the appointment of an independent arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Law Points

  • Arbitration agreement
  • Sole arbitrator appointment
  • Impartiality in arbitration
  • Communication of orders
  • Section 11 Arbitration and Conciliation Act
  • 1996
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2012 LawText (SC) (05) 39

Arbitration Petition No.19 of 2011

Surinder Singh Nijjar

Mr. Viswanathan, Mr. Bhat

Bipromasz Bipron Trading SA

Bharat Electronics Limited

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Petition for appointment of an independent arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought the appointment of an independent and impartial sole arbitrator.

Filing Reason

Disputes arose from the respondent's refusal to appoint an independent arbitrator as per the arbitration agreement.

Previous Decisions

The respondent claimed that the disputes should be referred to its Chairman-cum-Managing Director as per the arbitration clause.

Issues

Whether the disputes should be referred to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director or an independent arbitrator. Whether the appointment of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director as arbitrator raises concerns of impartiality.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the Chairman-cum-Managing Director could not act impartially due to his control over the respondent. Respondent contended that the arbitration clause explicitly named the Chairman as the arbitrator, making the petition not maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court emphasized that an order takes effect only upon communication to the affected party, and that the named arbitrator must be impartial; thus, the appointment of an independent arbitrator was warranted.

Judgment Excerpts

The only objection raised by the respondent is that the disputes have to be referred to the Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent or his nominee. The court held that the appointment of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director as arbitrator was inappropriate due to concerns of impartiality. The communication is deemed to have been received on the day it is so delivered.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed a notice on 20th May 2011 requesting the appointment of an independent arbitrator. The respondent replied asserting the Chairman's role, leading to the present petition filed on 21st July 2011.

Acts & Sections

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 11, Section 3
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows In-Service Doctors to Continue Post Graduate Courses with Conditions. The court ruled that the amendment circular increasing the bond period was not applicable to the 2008 admissions, allowing certain in-service doctors to contin...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Accused in UAPA Case on Ground of Parity and Long Incarceration. Appellant in Custody for Over 5 Years with No Imminent Trial Conclusion.