Supreme Court Appoints Sole Arbitrator in Dispute Resolution Case — Parties Agreed to Set Aside High Court Orders. Court Emphasized Special Circumstances of the Case and Non-Precedential Nature of the Order.

  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute involved the C.A.G. of India as the petitioner against the State of Rajasthan and others as respondents. The matter was brought before the Supreme Court following an order from the High Court that the parties found unsatisfactory. During the proceedings, the parties reached an agreement to set aside the High Court's orders from November 27, 2002, and July 30, 2002, and to appoint a sole arbitrator to resolve the entire dispute. The Supreme Court accepted this agreement and appointed Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P. Wadhwa as the sole arbitrator, directing him to resolve the matter within three months. The court clarified that this decision was made under special circumstances and would not serve as a precedent for future cases. The costs of the arbitration proceedings were to be shared equally by the parties, and the arbitrator was given the liberty to fix his fees in consultation with them. The venue for the arbitration was set in Delhi, and the arbitrator was instructed to file his award in the Supreme Court. The court also allowed the parties to approach the arbitrator for any interim orders as needed.

Headnote

A) Arbitration - Appointment of Arbitrator - Setting Aside High Court Order - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The parties agreed to set aside the High Court's order and appoint a sole arbitrator to resolve their dispute. The court appointed Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P. Wadhwa as the sole arbitrator and directed him to dispose of the matter within three months, emphasizing that this order is made under special circumstances and shall not set a precedent. (Paras Not mentioned).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the order passed by the High Court should be set aside and an arbitrator appointed to resolve the dispute.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's orders and appointed Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P. Wadhwa as the sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute, directing him to complete the arbitration within three months.

Law Points

  • Arbitration
  • Appointment of Arbitrator
  • Dispute Resolution
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2006 LawText (SC) (08) 102

Appeal (civil) 4066-4067 of 2003

2006-08-28

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, Altamas Kabir

Shri Soli J. Sorabjee, Mr. P.P. Rao, Mr. G. Bikshapathy

C.A.G. of India

State of Rajasthan & Ors.

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

Nature of Litigation

Dispute resolution through arbitration

Remedy Sought

Appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute

Filing Reason

Disagreement with the High Court's orders

Previous Decisions

High Court orders dated 27.11.2002 and 30.07.2002

Issues

Setting aside High Court orders Appointment of sole arbitrator

Submissions/Arguments

Agreement between parties to appoint an arbitrator Contention regarding the High Court's orders

Ratio Decidendi

The court emphasized the importance of resolving disputes through arbitration and the parties' agreement to appoint a sole arbitrator, highlighting the special circumstances of the case.

Judgment Excerpts

We, therefore set aside the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court We appoint Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P.Wadhwa as the sole Arbitrator to resolve the entire dispute

Procedural History

The matter was heard at length with multiple civil appeals listed for final hearing.

Acts & Sections

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Amendment of Import General Manifest Under Section 30 of Customs Act, 1962 — Mandamus Issued to Permit Filing of Bill of Entry and Clearance of Goods. The court held that the power under Section 30 is not confined to cleric...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging DRAT Order Setting Aside DRT's Reference to Arbitration in Bank Recovery Suit. Arbitration Clause Does Not Oust Jurisdiction of DRT Under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Inst...