Supreme Court Appoints Sole Arbitrator in Arbitration Dispute Due to International Commercial Arbitration Jurisdiction. The dispute was deemed to fall under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as the respondent was a British national, establishing a commercial relationship.

  • 4
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petition was filed by M/s Comed Chemicals Ltd. under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a third arbitrator or a sole arbitrator due to a dispute with Dr. C.N. Ramchand. The petitioner, a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the respondent for the development of bio-industrial products. The respondent was appointed as Director (Technical) but allegedly failed to fulfill his obligations, leading to his resignation and subsequent disputes over the arbitration clause in their agreement. The respondent contended that he was a British national, and thus the arbitration fell under international commercial arbitration, which should be adjudicated by the Chief Justice of India. The petitioner initially approached the High Court of Gujarat, but upon the respondent's objection, withdrew the application to file it in the Supreme Court. The court examined the nature of the relationship between the parties, determining that the respondent was not merely an employee but held a dual capacity as both an employee and a director, which involved commercial elements. The court concluded that the arbitration clause was valid and applicable, appointing a sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute. The decision emphasized the broad interpretation of commercial relationships under the Act, affirming the need for arbitration in this context.

Headnote

A) Arbitration Law - Appointment of Arbitrator - Jurisdiction of Chief Justice - Section 11 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The court held that the application for appointment of an arbitrator was maintainable as the dispute was covered under international commercial arbitration due to the respondent being a British national. The court appointed a sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute as per the arbitration clause in the agreement (Paras 10-33).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the dispute between the parties falls under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and whether the respondent was merely an employee or had a commercial relationship.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the application, appointing Mr. Madhukar Fanse, retired Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad as the sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties.

Law Points

  • Arbitration
  • International Commercial Arbitration
  • Appointment of Arbitrator
  • Arbitration Agreement
  • Dual Capacity of Director
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2008 LawText (SC) (11) 45

Arbitration Petition No. 17 of 2007

2008-11-06

C.K. Thakker

M/s Comed Chemicals Ltd.

Dr. C.N. Ramchand

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

Nature of Litigation

Arbitration petition for appointment of an arbitrator

Remedy Sought

Appointment of a third arbitrator or sole arbitrator

Filing Reason

Dispute over the arbitration clause and the respondent's resignation

Previous Decisions

Initial application filed in High Court of Gujarat was withdrawn

Issues

Whether the dispute falls under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Whether the respondent was merely an employee or had a commercial relationship

Submissions/Arguments

The applicant argued for the appointment of an arbitrator due to failure to agree on one. The respondent contended that the relationship was of master and servant, and thus the Act did not apply.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the arbitration clause was valid and applicable, establishing that the respondent's dual capacity as a director and employee involved commercial elements, thus falling under international commercial arbitration.

Judgment Excerpts

The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The respondent did not take interest in work and failed to attend Board Meetings. The court held that the application for appointment of an arbitrator was maintainable. Clause 12 of the agreement which provides for arbitration leaves no room for doubt that it is an ‘arbitration clause’.

Procedural History

The petitioner initially filed an application in the High Court of Gujarat, which was withdrawn to approach the Supreme Court. The present application was filed on May 22, 2007, and notice was issued to the respondent.

Acts & Sections

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 2(1)(f), Section 11
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Employment Transfer Case — High Court's Order Set Aside. The court found that the appointment order explicitly denied entitlement to additional remuneration, distinguishing it from precedents where such entitlement wa...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Trust Administration Dispute — Upholds Grant of Leave Under Section 92 CPC for Scheme Framing. Court holds that trustees with interest in a public charitable trust can maintain a suit for framing a scheme without prio...