Case Note & Summary
This case involved an application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the appointment of an arbitrator. The petitioner, M/s Shivnath Rai Harnarain (India) Ltd, sought arbitration after a dispute arose from contracts dated January 12, 2001, and February 28, 2001, which were amended to include arbitration provisions. The parties had previously agreed to refer their dispute to Mr. Samuel J. Marshall, who mediated and passed an award in favor of the petitioner on June 20, 2005. However, the respondents did not participate in the arbitration proceedings and later challenged the award in Singapore, where it was set aside by the High Court with permission to apply for fresh arbitration. The petitioner then filed the current application in India, arguing that Indian law governed the agreement and thus the Indian court could appoint an arbitrator. The respondents contended that the application was not maintainable as the arbitration was to occur in Singapore. The court analyzed the jurisdictional aspects under the Act, particularly Sections 2(1)(e) and 42, concluding that since the arbitration was agreed to be conducted in Singapore, the Indian court lacked jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator. The court dismissed the application, stating that the petitioner could not seek to appoint an arbitrator in India after having agreed to arbitration in Singapore. The application was dismissed without costs.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Jurisdiction of Courts - Maintainability of Application - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 11(6) - The court held that since the parties mutually agreed to refer the dispute to an arbitrator in Singapore, the application under Section 11(6) is not maintainable in India. The jurisdiction lies with the Singapore court as the award was passed there and subsequently set aside by the Singapore High Court (Paras 10-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is maintainable given the arbitration was to take place in Singapore.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, stating that the jurisdiction lies with the Singapore court where the arbitration was agreed to take place.
Law Points
- Arbitration jurisdiction
- appointment of arbitrator
- Section 11(6) Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- natural justice
- arbitral proceedings
