Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal by Union of India Against Appointment of Arbitrator. The court ruled that the right to appoint an arbitrator ceases once a Section 11(6) petition is filed, rendering subsequent appointments invalid.

  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose between the Union of India and M/s. Bharat Battery Manufacturing Co. (P) Ltd. regarding the appointment of an arbitrator under a rate contract for the supply of batteries. The respondent filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, after the appellant failed to appoint an arbitrator within the stipulated time following notices sent by the respondent. The High Court appointed Justice K.S. Gupta as the arbitrator, which the appellant contested, arguing that the appointment did not comply with the arbitration clause in the agreement. The court analyzed the timeline of events, noting that the appellant's appointment of Dr. Gita Rawat as an arbitrator occurred after the respondent filed the Section 11(6) petition, which the court found to be impermissible. The court referenced previous judgments to clarify that the right to appoint an arbitrator under the agreement ceases once a Section 11(6) petition is filed. Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision and stating that the appellant's actions were without jurisdiction.

Headnote

A) Arbitration Law - Appointment of Arbitrator - Jurisdictional Issue - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 11(6) - The court held that once a Section 11(6) petition is filed, the right of the other party to appoint an arbitrator ceases, making any subsequent appointment invalid. The appellant's appointment of an arbitrator after the petition was filed was deemed without jurisdiction (Paras 9-16).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appointment of an arbitrator by the appellant after the filing of a Section 11(6) petition was permissible.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's order appointing Justice K.S. Gupta as the arbitrator, and held that the appellant's subsequent appointment of Dr. Gita Rawat was without jurisdiction.

Law Points

  • Arbitration
  • appointment of arbitrator
  • Section 11(6) Arbitration and Conciliation Act
  • 1996
  • jurisdiction of court
  • arbitration agreement
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2007 LawText (SC) (10) 125

Civil Appeal No. 3692 of 2007

2007-08-13

H.K. Sema, Lokeshwar Singh Panta

P.P. Malhotra

Union of India

M/s. Bharat Battery Manufacturing Co. (P) Ltd.

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

Nature of Litigation

Dispute regarding the appointment of an arbitrator under a rate contract.

Remedy Sought

The respondent sought the appointment of an arbitrator.

Filing Reason

The appellant failed to appoint an arbitrator after receiving notices.

Previous Decisions

The High Court appointed an arbitrator, which the appellant contested.

Issues

Whether the appointment of an arbitrator by the appellant after the filing of a Section 11(6) petition was permissible.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that the High Court did not follow the procedure prescribed under Section 11(8) of the Act. The respondent contended that the appellant's appointment of an arbitrator after the petition was filed was invalid.

Ratio Decidendi

Once a Section 11(6) petition is filed, the right of the other party to appoint an arbitrator ceases, making any subsequent appointment invalid.

Judgment Excerpts

The order of appointment of Dr. Gita Rawat by the appellant as a sole arbitrator dated 15.5.2006 was passed without jurisdiction. Once Section 11(6) petition is filed by one party seeking appointment of an arbitrator, the other party cannot resurrect the clause of the agreement dealing with the appointment of the arbitrator.

Procedural History

The respondent filed a petition under Section 11(6) on 30.3.2006 after the appellant failed to appoint an arbitrator following notices sent on 7.6.2005 and 2.1.2006. The High Court appointed an arbitrator on 26.5.2006, which led to the appeal by the Union of India.

Acts & Sections

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 11(6), Section 11(8)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Property Dispute — Admission in Cross-Examination Sufficient to Prove Title. Court holds that an admission by the defendant in cross-examination regarding the plaintiff's ownership can be relied upon to ...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petitions Against Levy of Excise Duty on Fabrication and Construction of Structurals - Activities Do Not Amount to Manufacture Under Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Fabrication at site results in immovable prop...