Case Note & Summary
The applicant, M/s. Strongwell Construction Company, a partnership firm, filed an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator to resolve disputes arising out of a contract with the non-applicants, Maharashtra State Seeds Corporation Ltd. and others. The background is that earlier, in MCA (Arb.) No.10/1999, this Court had appointed Shri K.G. Khadse, Architect, Akola, as arbitrator on 30/07/1999. That order was challenged before the Supreme Court, which dismissed the challenge on 17/11/1999. The arbitrator entered upon reference and conducted proceedings. However, the arbitrator's mandate terminated on 30/04/2001 due to his resignation. Thereafter, the applicant made several requests to the non-applicants to appoint a substitute arbitrator, but the non-applicants did not respond. Consequently, the applicant filed the present application. The non-applicants opposed the application, contending that since the earlier arbitrator's mandate had terminated, the applicant could not seek a fresh appointment under Section 11(6). The Court considered the submissions and held that the termination of the arbitrator's mandate does not extinguish the right to seek appointment of a substitute arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act. The Court noted that the dispute between the parties remained unresolved and that the applicant had made efforts to secure appointment through the non-applicants, but they failed to act. The Court allowed the application and appointed Shri S.V. Purohit, Advocate, as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The Court directed the arbitrator to enter upon reference and make and publish the award within a period of one year from the date of entering upon reference, subject to extension by consent of parties. The Court also directed the parties to appear before the arbitrator on a specified date.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Appointment of Arbitrator - Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Termination of Arbitral Mandate - The applicant sought appointment of an arbitrator after the earlier arbitrator's mandate terminated due to resignation. The non-applicants opposed on the ground that the earlier appointment had been terminated and no fresh application could be made. The Court held that the right to seek appointment under Section 11(6) is not extinguished by the termination of the earlier arbitrator's mandate, especially when the dispute remains unresolved. The Court allowed the application and appointed a new arbitrator. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicant is entitled to appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, when the earlier arbitrator's mandate had terminated and the dispute remained unresolved.
Final Decision
The application is allowed. Shri S.V. Purohit, Advocate, is appointed as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The arbitrator shall enter upon reference and make and publish the award within one year from the date of entering upon reference, subject to extension by consent of parties. The parties are directed to appear before the arbitrator on 24/04/2023.
Law Points
- Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- Appointment of arbitrator
- Termination of mandate
- Right to seek fresh appointment
- Dispute resolution
