Case Note & Summary
The petition was filed under Section 11(6) and Section 11(12) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the appointment of a Third/Presiding Arbitrator in a dispute arising from a contract between the petitioners, a Joint Venture, and the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). The petitioners entered into an Agreement on May 31, 2001, for a project involving the 4-Laning of sections of National Highway 7 in Andhra Pradesh. After allegations of forged Bank Guarantees by the respondent in September 2004, the contract was terminated in December 2004. The petitioners appointed a retired Judge as their nominee Arbitrator, while the respondent appointed another, leading to a deadlock in appointing a Third Arbitrator. The petitioners sought the court's intervention to appoint a retired Judge of the Supreme Court or a retired Chief Justice of a High Court as the Presiding Arbitrator. The respondent contended that the Council of Indian Road Congress had the authority to appoint the Presiding Arbitrator in case of failure to reach consensus. The court analyzed the Arbitration Clause, which clearly stated that the IRC would appoint the Presiding Arbitrator if the two appointed arbitrators could not agree. The court referenced a previous decision involving the same parties, affirming the IRC's right to appoint the Presiding Arbitrator. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the clarity of the Arbitration Clause and the absence of consent for a specific appointment. The parties were left to bear their own costs.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Appointment of Arbitrators - Right of IRC to Appoint Presiding Arbitrator - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 11 - The court held that the Arbitration Clause explicitly provided for the appointment of the Presiding Arbitrator by the Council of Indian Road Congress in case of failure of consensus between the appointed arbitrators. The petitioners could not compel the respondent to agree to a specific retired Judge as Presiding Arbitrator, as the clause was clear and unambiguous (Paras 22-24).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners could compel the respondent to agree to a specific retired Judge as Presiding Arbitrator under the Arbitration Clause.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the petition, affirming that the Arbitration Clause clearly provided for the appointment of the Presiding Arbitrator by the Council of Indian Road Congress in case of failure of consensus between the appointed arbitrators. The parties were left to bear their own costs.
Law Points
- Arbitration
- Appointment of Arbitrators
- Arbitration Clause Interpretation
- Consent Orders
- Technical Nature of Disputes
