Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose between a company incorporated in London and a Government of India undertaking regarding a global tender and a purchase order dated September 29, 2000. The petitioner filed an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator due to disputes arising from the contract. The arbitration clause stipulated that the Chief Managing Director of the respondent would provide a panel of three names for the petitioner to select from. Following a breach of contract, the parties referred the matter to Hon. Mr. Justice R.S. Pathak, who later resigned as arbitrator. The respondent then provided a new panel of three names to the petitioner, who failed to select one within the specified time. Consequently, the respondent appointed a retired Judge of the Delhi High Court as the sole arbitrator. The petitioner objected to this appointment, arguing that a former Chief Justice of India should have been appointed instead. The court analyzed the arbitration clause and determined that the respondent was entitled to appoint an arbitrator after the petitioner's failure to select from the panel. The court found no merit in the petitioner's objections and directed the newly appointed arbitrator to commence proceedings promptly, expecting an award within six months. The application was ultimately rejected without costs.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Appointment of Sole Arbitrator - Failure to Select from Panel - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 11(6) - The petitioner failed to select a sole arbitrator from the panel provided by the respondent within the stipulated time, allowing the respondent to appoint a retired Judge as the sole arbitrator. The court held that the arbitration clause permitted the respondent to make the appointment after the petitioner's failure to act, thus rejecting the petitioner's objections (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner was entitled to appoint a sole arbitrator after failing to select from the panel provided by the respondent.
Final Decision
The court rejected the petitioner's application for appointment of a sole arbitrator, affirming that the respondent was entitled to appoint an arbitrator after the petitioner failed to select from the provided panel. The court directed the newly appointed arbitrator to commence proceedings and expected an award within six months.
Law Points
- Arbitration
- appointment of arbitrator
- breach of contract
- arbitration clause
- sole arbitrator selection
