Supreme Court Appoints Sole Arbitrator in Arbitration Petition Due to Non-Response from Respondent. Petitioner's Claims Remain Uncontested, Leading to Appointment Under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from a Survey Contract dated 8.4.2008 between the petitioner and the respondent, where the petitioner was to perform various surveys for the respondent. The petitioner, a Sub-Contractor, completed the geographical survey and partially completed soil sampling, raising an invoice for USD 565614.98 on 15th July 2008. Despite reminders and a legal notice dated 14.2.2009 for payment, the respondent did not respond. The petitioner subsequently invoked the arbitration clause through a legal notice dated 8.12.2010, proposing Mr. Pawan Aggarwal as the arbitrator, but the respondent failed to confirm this appointment. The petitioner then filed Arbitration Petition No.118 of 2011 in the Bombay High Court, which allowed withdrawal of the petition, directing the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Supreme Court noted that despite service of notice, the respondent did not appear, and the petitioner's claims were unchallenged. Consequently, the court appointed Mr. Justice Arvind V. Savant as the sole arbitrator, allowing him to fix his remuneration and terms for the arbitration, with the seat of arbitration in Mumbai. The order was communicated to the arbitrator for expeditious reference.

Headnote

A) Arbitration Law - Appointment of Arbitrator - Entitlement to Appointment - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 11(6) - The petitioner sought the appointment of a sole arbitrator due to the respondent's failure to respond to legal notices and confirm the appointment of an arbitrator. The court found that the petitioner's claims remained uncontroverted and thus allowed the petition for the appointment of an arbitrator. Held that the petition deserved to be allowed (Paras 1-8).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to the appointment of a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the arbitration petition and appointed Mr. Justice Arvind V. Savant as the sole arbitrator, with the seat of arbitration in Mumbai.

Law Points

  • Arbitration
  • Appointment of Arbitrator
  • Dispute Resolution
  • Legal Notice
  • Service of Notice
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2012 LawText (SC) (09) 126

Arbitration Petition No. 25 of 2011

2012-09-07

Surinder Singh Nijjar

M/S.Fugro Survey (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Ramunia International Services Ltd.

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

Nature of Litigation

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

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought the appointment of a sole arbitrator.

Filing Reason

Disputes arose from the Survey Contract and non-payment by the respondent.

Previous Decisions

The petitioner previously filed Arbitration Petition No.118 of 2011 in the Bombay High Court.

Issues

Entitlement to appointment of sole arbitrator Effect of non-response from the respondent

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued for appointment due to non-response from the respondent Respondent did not appear or contest the claims

Ratio Decidendi

The court emphasized the importance of resolving disputes through arbitration as per the contractual agreement and noted the lack of contest from the respondent.

Judgment Excerpts

This petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 The specified work which was required to be done by the sub-contractor is contained in various Articles of the aforesaid Survey Contract. In view of the above, this petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly the arbitration petition is allowed.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed Arbitration Petition No.118 of 2011 in the Bombay High Court, which allowed withdrawal of the petition, directing the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Acts & Sections

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 11(6), Section 11(10)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Disqualification of Chief Minister Due to Criminal Conviction — Constitutionality of Appointment Examined.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Addresses Starvation Deaths in Orissa — Directs Government to Implement Welfare Measures. The Court mandated the inclusion of social workers in relief committees to oversee welfare measures in Kalahandi and Koraput districts.