Supreme Court Appoints Arbitrator in International Arbitration Dispute — Clarifies Nationality Considerations. The court ruled that it is not mandatory to appoint an arbitrator of a nationality different from that of the parties, allowing for flexibility in arbitrator selection under Section 11(9) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved an application under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, filed by a foreign company against an Indian company, seeking the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from agreements related to air transportation. The petitioner claimed that the respondent owed a substantial amount and had failed to remit payments as per their agreements. The petitioner alleged that the respondent had admitted liability in a letter but failed to pay, leading to the request for arbitration. The respondent countered that the agreements had ceased to exist and denied any liability. The court considered two main points: whether preliminary issues could be decided at this stage and whether an arbitrator of Indian nationality could be appointed. The court referenced previous judgments and clarified that the Chief Justice or his nominee could not decide preliminary issues at this stage, directing that the matter be referred to an arbitrator. Regarding the nationality of the arbitrator, the court concluded that it is not mandatory to appoint an arbitrator of a nationality different from that of the parties, especially when the foreign company expressed no objection to an Indian arbitrator. Consequently, the court appointed a retired judge as the sole arbitrator and directed that the remuneration and costs be fixed by the arbitrator after hearing both parties.

Headnote

A) Arbitration Law - Appointment of Arbitrator - Nationality Considerations - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 11(9) - The court held that it is not mandatory to appoint an arbitrator of a nationality different from that of the parties, especially when the foreign party has no objection to an Indian arbitrator. The court emphasized that the word 'may' in Section 11(9) does not impose a mandatory obligation, allowing for flexibility in arbitrator selection (Paras 13-14).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Chief Justice of India must appoint an arbitrator of a nationality other than that of the parties in an international arbitration agreement.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court appointed Sri Justice D.P. Wadhwa, retired Judge of the Supreme Court, as the sole arbitrator, directing that the remuneration and costs be fixed by the arbitrator after hearing both parties.

Law Points

  • Arbitration
  • Conciliation
  • International Commercial Arbitration
  • Appointment of Arbitrator
  • Nationality of Arbitrator
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2000 LawText (SC) (11) 5

Arbitration Petition 18 of 2000

2000-11-30

M. Jagannadha Rao

Malaysian Airlines Systems Bhd

M/s. STIC Travels (P) Ltd.

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

Nature of Litigation

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

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought the appointment of a retired Judge of the Supreme Court as an arbitrator.

Filing Reason

Dispute over payments due under agreements between a foreign and an Indian company.

Previous Decisions

The court referenced previous judgments regarding the appointment of arbitrators and the nationality considerations.

Issues

Whether preliminary issues raised by the respondent can be decided at this stage or be referred to the arbitrator. Whether it is permissible to appoint an arbitrator of Indian nationality in an international arbitration agreement.

Submissions/Arguments

The petitioner argued for the appointment of an arbitrator due to the respondent's failure to pay admitted liabilities. The respondent contended that the agreements had ceased to exist and denied any liability.

Ratio Decidendi

The court clarified that under Section 11(9) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it is not mandatory to appoint an arbitrator of a nationality different from that of the parties, allowing for flexibility based on the parties' agreement.

Judgment Excerpts

This is an application under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and relates to a dispute under an agreement between a foreign company and an Indian company. I am therefore of the view that under section 11(9) of the Act it is not mandatory for the Court to appoint an arbitrator not belonging to the nationality of either of the parties to the dispute.

Procedural History

The application was filed by the petitioner seeking the appointment of an arbitrator, followed by a counter from the respondent denying liability and questioning the existence of agreements. The court heard submissions from both parties before making its decision.

Acts & Sections

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 11(5), Section 11(9)
  • Indian Stamp Act: Section 42(1)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Hears Appeals Against High Court Judgment Confirming Death Sentences and Convicting Acquitted Accused in Multiple Murder Case. Appeals Challenge Convictions Under Sections 302, 149, 147, 148, 307, 436, 452, 404 of Indian Penal Code, 186...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court Sets Aside MACT Order Deleting Insurance Company in Motor Accident Claim -- Premature Deletion Without Evidence Violates Natural Justice -- Reinstatement of Party for Proper Adjudication Under Motor Vehicles Act