Bombay High Court Allows Appointment of Arbitrator in Transport Agreement Dispute Despite Alleged Settlement. Arbitration clause survives termination of contract and disputes regarding compensation are arbitrable under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 101
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The applicant, United Shippers Limited, filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator to resolve disputes arising out of two agreements dated 25th March 2003 and 27th February 2004 for transporting coal. The respondent, Tata Power Company Limited, contended that the first agreement was closed and no disputes subsisted, relying on a credit note issued by the applicant. The court examined the arbitration clauses in both agreements, which were identical and provided for arbitration by a retired Chief Justice of a High Court or a retired Supreme Court Judge. The court held that the arbitration clause survives the termination of the contract and that disputes regarding compensation are arbitrable. The court also noted that the existence of an arbitration agreement is a condition precedent for appointment of an arbitrator and must be examined prima facie. The court allowed the application and appointed a retired Judge of this Court as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

Headnote

A) Arbitration Law - Appointment of Arbitrator - Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Survival of Arbitration Clause - The court considered whether the arbitration clause in a transport agreement survived the termination of the contract and whether disputes regarding compensation were arbitrable. The court held that the arbitration clause is independent and survives termination, and disputes regarding compensation are arbitrable. (Paras 1-10)

B) Arbitration Law - Existence of Arbitration Agreement - Prima Facie Examination - Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The court examined whether there was an arbitration agreement between the parties. The court held that the existence of an arbitration agreement is a condition precedent for appointment of an arbitrator, and the court must examine the same prima facie. (Paras 1-10)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the arbitration agreement survives the termination of the contract and whether disputes regarding compensation are arbitrable.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the application and appointed a retired Judge of this Court as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

Law Points

  • Arbitration clause survives termination of contract
  • Disputes regarding compensation are arbitrable
  • Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
  • 1996
  • Existence of arbitration agreement is a condition precedent
  • Court to examine prima facie existence of arbitration agreement
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2010 LawText (BOM) (10) 69

Arbitration Application No. 50 of 2007

2010-10-15

S.J. Vazifdar

Mr. Prashant Pratap with Mr. Manoj Khatri for the Applicant, Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, senior counsel with Mr. S.V. Doijode, Parag Kabadi and Ms. Taruna Nagpal i/b M/s.Doijode & Associates for the Respondent

United Shippers Limited

Tata Power Company Limited

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

Nature of Litigation

Application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator.

Remedy Sought

Appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising out of two transport agreements.

Filing Reason

Disputes arose between the parties regarding compensation under the agreements, and the applicant sought reference to arbitration as per the arbitration clause.

Issues

Whether the arbitration agreement survives the termination of the contract? Whether disputes regarding compensation are arbitrable?

Submissions/Arguments

Respondent submitted that the first agreement dated 25th March 2003 is closed and no disputes subsist, relying on a credit note dated 31st March 2005 issued by the Applicant. Applicant contended that disputes exist and the arbitration clause survives termination.

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitration clause is independent of the contract and survives its termination. Disputes regarding compensation are arbitrable. The existence of an arbitration agreement is a condition precedent for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Judgment Excerpts

This is an application under section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The parties had entered into an agreement dated 25th March, 2003, for transporting coal. Clause 29 thereof contained an arbitration agreement... The parties thereafter entered into another agreement dated 27th February, 2004... on similar terms and conditions.

Procedural History

The applicant filed Arbitration Application No. 50 of 2007 under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator. The respondent opposed the application on the ground that the first agreement was closed and no disputes subsisted. The court heard the parties and passed the judgment on 15th October 2010.

Acts & Sections

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 11
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Maintenance Tribunal Order for Senior Citizens Under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Section 9(2) Cap of Rs.10,000 Applies Per Child, Not in Aggregate, Allowing Total Payment of Rs.26,000 Pe...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Election of Successful Candidate in Office of Profit Disqualification Case Under Article 191(1)(a). Employee of Government Company Not Disqualified Because He Does Not Hold Office Directly Under State Government.