Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a work order issued by the respondent to the appellant, which included an arbitration clause. Following a notice of demand that was refused, the appellant sought arbitration, leading to a High Court order for appointing an arbitrator. The Supreme Court addressed the nature of the Chief Justice's power under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, specifically Section 11(6), and clarified that it is a judicial power, allowing for delegation only to judges of the same court. The court overruled the precedent set in Konkan Rly. Corpn. Ltd. v. Rani Construction (P) Ltd., establishing that all previous appointments made under the erroneous understanding would remain valid. The parties agreed on a procedure for appointing arbitrators, with the appellant nominating its arbitrator and the respondent to follow suit, after which the Chief Justice would appoint a Presiding Arbitrator. The appeal was disposed of without costs.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Judicial Power - Nature of Power under Section 11(6) - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 11(6) - The Supreme Court clarified that the power exercised by the Chief Justice under Section 11(6) is judicial and not administrative, allowing for delegation only to another judge of the same court. The court overruled previous decisions that suggested otherwise, establishing a clear framework for arbitration appointments (Paras 4-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Chief Justice of the High Court has judicial power under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court clarified the judicial nature of the Chief Justice's power under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and established a procedure for appointing arbitrators, disposing of the appeal without costs.
Law Points
- Arbitration agreement
- Judicial power
- Section 11(6) Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- Appointment of arbitrators
- Overruling of precedents
