Case Note & Summary
The applicant, M/s. Railtech Infraventure Pvt. Ltd., filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising out of a contract with the Union of India and the Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railway, Pune. The contract, dated October 10, 2009, was for deep screening and ballast renewal works in the Pune-Lonavla section, with a total cost of Rs. 1,43,49,245.79. The contract was governed by the General Conditions of Contract (GCC) of Central Railways, which contained arbitration clauses 63 and 64. Clause 63 defined excepted matters that were not arbitrable, while clause 64 provided for arbitration. The applicant contended that disputes arose and it made a demand for arbitration on January 10, 2014, but the respondent failed to appoint an arbitrator within 30 days as required. The respondent argued that the disputes were excepted matters under clause 63 and thus not arbitrable. The court examined the arbitration agreement and found that the disputes raised by the applicant were not covered by the excepted matters listed in clause 63. The court noted that the respondent did not appoint an arbitrator within 30 days of the demand, as required by clause 64(3)(a). Therefore, the court held that it had the power to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act. The court appointed a retired judge of the Bombay High Court as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes, excluding excepted matters. The arbitrator was directed to make a disclosure under Section 12 of the Act and to file the award within the time prescribed by law.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Appointment of Arbitrator - Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Failure to Appoint - Applicant contractor sought appointment of arbitrator after respondent failed to appoint one within 30 days of demand - Court held that since respondent did not appoint arbitrator within the stipulated time, the court is empowered to appoint an arbitrator - Held that the arbitration agreement exists and the dispute is arbitrable except for excepted matters (Paras 1-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the court should appoint an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 when the respondent failed to appoint an arbitrator within 30 days of the demand, despite the existence of an arbitration agreement.
Final Decision
The court allowed the application and appointed a retired judge of the Bombay High Court as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties, excluding excepted matters. The arbitrator was directed to make a disclosure under Section 12 of the Act and to file the award within the time prescribed by law.
Law Points
- Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- General Conditions of Contract (GCC) Clauses 63 and 64
- Excepted matters
- Appointment of arbitrator by court when party fails to act as per arbitration agreement
