Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Microvision Technologies Pvt. Ltd., a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and a micro enterprise under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act), had entered into a contract with the respondent no.2, Union of India through the General Manager, Central Railway. The contract contained an arbitration agreement in clauses 63 and 64 of the General Conditions of the Contract. Disputes arose between the parties, and the petitioner invoked Section 18 of the MSMED Act, 2006 by applying to the Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (respondent no.1) for conciliation. The conciliation proceedings failed and were terminated. Thereafter, the petitioner issued a notice on 25th May 2016 to the Council and the General Manager, Central Railway, and subsequently filed three arbitration petitions under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of a retired Judge of this Court as a sole arbitrator. The court noted that there was no dispute regarding the existence of the arbitration agreement or the failure of conciliation. The court allowed the petitions and appointed a retired Judge of this Court as the sole arbitrator to decide the disputes between the petitioner and respondent no.2.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Appointment of Arbitrator - Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Petitioner, a micro enterprise, invoked Section 18 of the MSMED Act, 2006 for conciliation before the Facilitation Council - Conciliation failed - Petitioner sought appointment of sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) - Court held that since arbitration agreement exists and conciliation failed, appointment of arbitrator is warranted - Directed appointment of a retired Judge of this Court as sole arbitrator (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 after the conciliation proceedings under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, 2006 failed.
Final Decision
The court allowed the arbitration petitions and appointed a retired Judge of this Court as the sole arbitrator to decide the disputes between the petitioner and respondent no.2.
Law Points
- Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- Section 18 of the Micro
- Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act
- 2006
- Appointment of arbitrator after failed conciliation
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (12) 31
Arbitration Petition No.43 of 2016 along with Arbitration Petition No.44 of 2016 and Arbitration Petition No.45 of 2016
Mr. A.P. Bhandari i/by Ms. Chaitrali Deshmukh for the petitioner, Mr. A.A. Parkar for the respondent no.1, Mr. T.J. Pandian for the respondent no.2
M/s. Microvision Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
1. Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, 2. Union of India
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Arbitration petition for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner seeks appointment of a retired Judge of this Court as a sole arbitrator to decide the dispute between the petitioner and respondent no.2.
Filing Reason
Conciliation proceedings under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, 2006 failed, and the arbitration agreement exists between the parties.
Previous Decisions
Conciliation proceedings between the parties failed and were terminated.
Issues
Whether the petitioner is entitled to appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 after the conciliation proceedings under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, 2006 failed.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that conciliation failed and arbitration agreement exists, warranting appointment of arbitrator.
Respondents did not dispute the existence of arbitration agreement or failure of conciliation.
Ratio Decidendi
Where an arbitration agreement exists and conciliation proceedings under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, 2006 have failed, the court may appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Judgment Excerpts
By these three arbitration petitions filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner has applied for appointment of any retired Judge of this Court as a sole arbitrator to decide the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent no.2.
There is no dispute that the arbitration agreement is recorded between the parties in clauses 63 and 64 of the General Conditions of the Contract.
There is no dispute that the conciliation proceedings between the parties failed and the conciliation proceedings came to be terminated.
Procedural History
Petitioner invoked Section 18 of MSMED Act, 2006 for conciliation before the Facilitation Council. Conciliation failed. Petitioner issued notice on 25th May 2016. Petitioner filed three arbitration petitions under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of arbitrator.
Acts & Sections
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 11(6)
- Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006: Section 18, Section 18(1)
- Indian Companies Act, 1956:
