Supreme Court Appoints Sole Arbitrator in Arbitration Petition Under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Disputes arose from Construction Management Agreements regarding completion notices and fee obligations, with the court determining arbitration under those agreements was appropriate.

  • 4
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Supreme Court of India dealt with two arbitration petitions filed by DLF Home Developers Limited (DHDL) under Section 11(6) read with Section 11(12) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from Construction Management Agreements (RCMA and SCMA) dated 25.01.2017. The background involved a joint venture between DHDL and Ridgewood Holdings Limited, later transferred to affiliates including Respondent No.2 (Resimmo PCC), leading to Share Purchase Agreements (SPAs) in 2016-2017 for transfer of shares and execution of RCMA and SCMA for construction management services. DHDL issued notices of completion for projects under the agreements in 2019, which were rejected by the respondents (Rajapura Homes Private Limited, Begur OMR Homes Private Limited, and Respondent No.2), alleging delays and incomplete documentation. DHDL then invoked arbitration under Clause 11 of the RCMA and SCMA, proposing a sole arbitrator, but the respondents refused, contending that disputes arose under the SPAs, not the construction agreements, and should be resolved separately under SIAC rules. The legal issues centered on whether the disputes fell under the RCMA and SCMA, warranting appointment of an arbitrator under the Act, and the nature of the arbitration as international commercial arbitration due to Respondent No.2's foreign incorporation. Arguments by DHDL emphasized unreasonable rejection of completion notices to avoid fee obligations, while respondents argued for separate arbitrations under the SPAs. The court's analysis involved examining the arbitration clauses in both sets of agreements and the factual context of the disputes. The decision resulted in the court appointing a sole arbitrator for the disputes under the RCMA and SCMA, as detailed in the operative directions.

Headnote

A) Arbitration Law - Appointment of Arbitrator - Section 11(6) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The petitioner filed petitions under Section 11(6) read with Section 11(12) of the Act for appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from Construction Management Agreements (RCMA and SCMA) dated 25.01.2017. The court considered whether the disputes fell under these agreements and whether appointment was warranted. Held that the disputes pertained to the RCMA and SCMA, and the court appointed a sole arbitrator for resolution. (Paras 1, 11)

B) Arbitration Law - International Commercial Arbitration - Section 2(1)(f) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The arbitration involved Respondent No.2, a company incorporated in Mauritius, making it an international commercial arbitration under Section 2(1)(f) of the Act. The court noted this jurisdictional aspect in the context of the appointment proceedings. (Para 11)

C) Contract Law - Construction Management Agreements - Arbitration Clause - The RCMA and SCMA contained arbitration clauses specifying New Delhi as the seat and venue, governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner invoked arbitration under Clause 11 after disputes arose over notices of completion. The court examined these clauses to determine the applicability of arbitration. (Paras 5, 9)

D) Contract Law - Share Purchase Agreements - Arbitration Clause - The Rajapura SPA and Southern Homes SPA contained arbitration clauses providing for arbitration under SIAC rules with seat in Singapore. Respondents argued disputes arose under these agreements, not the RCMA/SCMA. The court considered this contention in assessing the proper forum for arbitration. (Paras 4, 10)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the disputes between the parties arise under the Construction Management Agreements (RCMA and SCMA) and whether a sole arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for resolution of those disputes.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Court appointed a sole arbitrator for resolution of disputes arising from the Construction Management Agreements (RCMA and SCMA) under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Law Points

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act
  • 1996
  • Section 11(6)
  • Section 11(12)
  • Section 2(1)(f)
  • Appointment of Arbitrator
  • International Commercial Arbitration
  • Construction Management Agreements
  • Share Purchase Agreements
  • Arbitration Clause
  • Seat of Arbitration
  • Composite Arbitration
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2021 LawText (SC) (9) 54

Arbitration Petition (Civil) No. 17 of 2020, Arbitration Petition (Civil) No. 16 of 2020

2021-09-22

Surya Kant, J.

DLF Home Developers Limited

Rajapura Homes Private Limited & Anr., Begur OMR Homes Pvt. Limited & Anr.

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

Nature of Litigation

Arbitration petitions for appointment of sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Remedy Sought

Petitioner seeks appointment of sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from Construction Management Agreements (RCMA and SCMA)

Filing Reason

Respondents refused to appoint arbitrator after petitioner invoked arbitration under Clause 11 of RCMA and SCMA

Issues

Whether disputes arise under Construction Management Agreements (RCMA and SCMA) for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Whether arbitration is international commercial arbitration under Section 2(1)(f) of the Act

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner contended that respondents unreasonably rejected notices of completion to avoid fee obligations and disputes are arbitrable under RCMA and SCMA Respondents argued that disputes arise under Share Purchase Agreements (SPAs) and should be resolved separately under SIAC rules, not under RCMA/SCMA

Ratio Decidendi

Disputes between the parties pertain to the Construction Management Agreements (RCMA and SCMA), and appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is warranted for their resolution.

Judgment Excerpts

The Petitioner DLF Home Developers Limited (hereinafter, “DHDL ”) has filed Arbitration Petition No. 16 of 2020 and Arbitration Petition No. 17 of 2020 under Section 11(6) read with Section 11(12) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, “Act”) for appointment of sole arbitrator Clause 11 of the Agreements contemplate that the seat and venue of Arbitration would be New Delhi, and the arbitration would be governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 It may be highlighted that since Respondent No.2 is not a body incorporated in India, the arbitration between the Parties falls within the ambit of ‘international commercial arbitration’ as defined under Section 2(1)(f) of the Act

Procedural History

Petitioner filed arbitration petitions under Section 11(6) read with Section 11(12) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 after respondents refused to appoint arbitrator following invocation of arbitration under Clause 11 of RCMA and SCMA

Acts & Sections

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 11(6), Section 11(12), Section 2(1)(f)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Appoints Sole Arbitrator in Arbitration Petition Under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Disputes arose from Construction Management Agreements regarding completion notices and fee obligations, with the court determining arbitrati...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Regularization Case Due to Failure to Meet Umadevi Criteria. Daily Wage Employee Not Entitled to Regularization as Initial Appointment Was Not by Competent Authority and No Sanctioned Post Existed, Following Binding ...