Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Union of India represented by the Ministry of Space (ISRO), filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging a communication dated 28-05-2022 issued by the Delhi Arbitration Centre appointing an arbitrator to conduct arbitral proceedings in a dispute with the first respondent, M/s. Harcharan Dass Gupta. The petitioner also challenged the subsequent order dated 26-09-2023 passed by the arbitrator directing the petitioner to file a statement of defence. The dispute arose out of a contract between the parties, which contained an arbitration clause. The first respondent invoked the arbitration clause and approached the Delhi Arbitration Centre, which appointed an arbitrator without seeking the consent of the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the appointment was invalid as it was made without its consent and in violation of the arbitration agreement. The court heard Sri K. Aravind Kamath, Additional Solicitor General of India, along with Sri A. Chandrachud, Central Government Standing Counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. Renuka Arora for the first respondent. The court held that the appointment of the arbitrator by the Delhi Arbitration Centre without the consent of the Union of India was invalid and without jurisdiction. Consequently, the court quashed the communication dated 28-05-2022 appointing the arbitrator and the subsequent proceedings, including the order dated 26-09-2023 directing the petitioner to file a statement of defence. The court allowed the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Appointment of Arbitrator - Lack of Consent - Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The Delhi Arbitration Centre appointed an arbitrator without obtaining the consent of the Union of India, which was a party to the arbitration agreement. The court held that such appointment is invalid as it violates the principle of party autonomy and the requirement of mutual consent under Section 11. The arbitrator's proceedings were quashed. (Paras 1-10) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - The High Court exercised its writ jurisdiction to quash the appointment of the arbitrator and the subsequent proceedings, as the appointment was made without jurisdiction and in violation of the arbitration agreement. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appointment of an arbitrator by the Delhi Arbitration Centre without the consent of the Union of India is valid and whether the arbitrator has jurisdiction to proceed with the arbitration.
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed. Communication dated 28-05-2022 appointing arbitrator and proceedings including order dated 26-09-2023 quashed.
Law Points
- Arbitration agreement
- jurisdiction of arbitrator
- appointment without consent
- Section 11 Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227
