Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Uttam Energy Ltd., filed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitral tribunal to adjudicate disputes arising under two agreements dated 30 June 2012 with the respondent, M/s. Shivratna Udyog Ltd. The agreements were for design, procurement, manufacture, supply, and supervision of erection and commissioning of a boiler for a power generation project. Disputes arose, and the petitioner sent a notice dated 3 December 2020 invoking the arbitration agreement and proposing a sole arbitrator. The respondent did not reply. The petition was initially filed on the Original Side of the Bombay High Court as a Commercial Arbitration Petition but was transferred to the Appellate Side by order dated 7 March 2022. The Court noted that there was no dispute regarding the existence of the arbitration agreement, contained in Clauses 15 and 14 of the respective agreements. The petitioner's claim was for Rs.1,33,37,723/-. The Court found that the arbitration agreement existed and was validly invoked, and since the respondent failed to appoint an arbitrator, the Court appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Appointment of Arbitrator - Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Existence of Arbitration Agreement - The petitioner sought appointment of an arbitral tribunal under Section 11 of the Act to adjudicate disputes arising under two agreements dated 30 June 2012. The respondent did not respond to the invocation notice. The Court held that since there was an arbitration agreement and the respondent failed to appoint an arbitrator, the Court could appoint a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 when the respondent failed to respond to the invocation notice and the arbitration agreement provides for unilateral appointment.
Final Decision
The Court appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
Law Points
- Existence of arbitration agreement
- invocation of arbitration
- appointment of arbitrator under Section 11
- unilateral appointment clause
- failure to respond to notice
