Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Arbitration Matter Due to Invalid Appointment of Arbitrator. Appointment of Arbitrator After Filing of Section 11(6) Petition Declared Without Jurisdiction.

  • 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 the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The respondent had submitted a tender for the supply of batteries, leading to a rate contract that included a price variation clause. Disputes emerged over the non-issuance of amendments related to price variations, prompting the respondent to send notices invoking arbitration. After the appellant failed to appoint an arbitrator within the stipulated time, the respondent filed a Section 11(6) petition in the High Court, which appointed a retired judge as the arbitrator. The appellant contested this, arguing that the appointment did not comply with the contract's arbitration clause. The court analyzed the legal framework surrounding the appointment of arbitrators, particularly focusing on the implications of filing a Section 11(6) petition. It concluded that the right to appoint an arbitrator ceased for the appellant once the petition was filed, rendering their subsequent appointment invalid. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision without costs.

Headnote

A) Arbitration Law - Appointment of Arbitrator - Jurisdictional Authority - 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, holding that the appointment of Dr. Gita Rawat as a sole arbitrator by the appellant after the filing of the Section 11(6) petition was without jurisdiction, as the right to appoint an arbitrator ceased upon the filing of the petition.

Law Points

  • Arbitration
  • Appointment of Arbitrator
  • Section 11(6) Arbitration and Conciliation Act
  • 1996
  • Jurisdictional Authority
  • Price Variation Clause
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2007 LawText (SC) (10) 145

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 the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Remedy Sought

The respondent sought the appointment of an arbitrator.

Filing Reason

The appellant failed to appoint an arbitrator after receiving notices invoking arbitration.

Previous Decisions

The High Court appointed an arbitrator after the respondent filed a Section 11(6) petition.

Issues

Validity of arbitrator appointment after Section 11(6) petition Compliance with arbitration agreement

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that the High Court's appointment did not follow the procedure under Section 11(8). 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 under the arbitration agreement 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.

Procedural History

The respondent filed a Section 11(6) petition on 30.3.2006 after the appellant failed to appoint an arbitrator within 30 days of receiving the request. The High Court appointed an arbitrator on 26.5.2006, and the appellant later attempted to appoint another arbitrator on 15.5.2006.

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...