Case Note & Summary
The case involved a series of petitions challenging the orders of various Chief Justices regarding the appointment of arbitrators under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Supreme Court addressed two primary questions: the nature of the order passed by the Chief Justice or his nominee under Section 11(6) and the remedies available if such an order is contested. The court noted that prior to the 1996 Act, the Arbitration Act of 1940 was in force, which did not address foreign awards. The 1996 Act was enacted to facilitate domestic and international arbitration, aiming to reduce judicial intervention and expedite dispute resolution. The court referred to previous judgments, including Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. NEPC India Ltd. and Ador Samia Private Ltd. v. Peekay Holdings Ltd., to establish that the Chief Justice acts in an administrative capacity when appointing arbitrators. The court concluded that orders made under Section 11(6) are administrative and not subject to judicial scrutiny under Article 136. However, if an appointment is refused, a party may seek a writ of mandamus from the High Court. The court dismissed the special leave petitions challenging the Chief Justices' orders, affirming that such orders do not constitute judicial decisions and are not binding on arbitral tribunals (Paras 1-7).
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Appointment of Arbitrator - Nature of Order - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 11(6) - The Chief Justice or his nominee acts in an administrative capacity when appointing an arbitrator, and such orders are not subject to judicial review under Article 136 of the Constitution. The court emphasized that the legislative intent is to minimize court intervention in the arbitral process, thus affirming the administrative nature of the appointment order (Paras 1-7).
Issue of Consideration
What is the nature of the order passed by the Chief Justice or his nominee under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and what remedies are available if such an order is contested?
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions, affirming that the orders of the Chief Justices regarding the appointment of arbitrators are administrative in nature and not subject to judicial review under Article 136. The court clarified that if an appointment is refused, a party may seek a writ of mandamus from the High Court.
Law Points
- Arbitration
- appointment of arbitrator
- administrative orders
- judicial review
- Section 11
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
