Supreme Court Appoints Sole Arbitrator in Arbitration Petition Due to Respondent's Non-Compliance. Modification of Arbitration Clause Permitted to Expedite Dispute Resolution Under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose between the petitioner, M/s. Shaf Broadcast Pvt. Ltd., and the respondent, Doordarshan, a constituent of Prasar Bharti, following a contract dated 08.03.2010 that included an arbitration clause. The petitioner invoked the arbitration clause on 14.01.2019 and nominated its arbitrator on 28.02.2019; however, the respondent failed to appoint its arbitrator. Consequently, the petitioner filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the court's intervention to appoint an arbitrator on behalf of the respondent. During the hearing, all parties consented to modify the arbitration clause to appoint a Sole Arbitrator instead of a three-member tribunal. The court appointed Mr. Justice (Retd.) A. M. Sapre as the Sole Arbitrator, ensuring compliance with the requirements of independence and impartiality as per Section 12 of the Act. The arbitration proceedings were directed to be held in New Delhi, and the arbitrator was requested to complete the proceedings within the specified time limit. The court also directed that the arbitrator's fees be in accordance with the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The parties were instructed to appear before the arbitrator on 15.11.2019, and the matter was disposed of accordingly.

Headnote

A) Arbitration Law - Appointment of Arbitrator - Court's Authority - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 11 - The petitioner sought the appointment of an arbitrator due to the respondent's failure to nominate one as per the arbitration agreement. The court, with the consent of all parties, appointed a Sole Arbitrator instead of a three-member tribunal, ensuring compliance with the Act's provisions regarding independence and impartiality. Held that the appointment was necessary to resolve the disputes effectively (Paras 1-6).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the court should appoint an arbitrator on behalf of the respondent under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court appointed Mr. Justice (Retd.) A. M. Sapre as the Sole Arbitrator, directing that the arbitration be conducted in New Delhi and completed within the specified time limit. The arbitrator's fees were to be in accordance with the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Law Points

  • Arbitration agreement
  • appointment of arbitrator
  • modification of arbitration clause
  • independence and impartiality of arbitrator
  • seat of arbitration
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (SC) (11) 171

Arbitration Petition No. 36 of 2019

2019-11-07

Indu Malhotra, Uday Umesh Lalit, Sanjiv Khanna

M/s. Shaf Broadcast Pvt. Ltd.

Doordarshan – A Constituent of Prasar Bharti

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

Nature of Litigation

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

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought the appointment of an arbitrator on behalf of the respondent.

Filing Reason

Respondent failed to nominate an arbitrator as per the arbitration agreement.

Issues

Appointment of arbitrator under Section 11 Modification of arbitration clause

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued for the appointment of an arbitrator due to the respondent's non-compliance. Counsel for all parties consented to appoint a Sole Arbitrator instead of a three-member tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that it had the authority to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, especially when one party fails to comply with the arbitration agreement, and that modification of the arbitration clause was permissible to facilitate effective dispute resolution.

Judgment Excerpts

The Petitioner has filed an Application under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator. The arbitration clause specifies that the Seat of arbitration will be at New Delhi, India.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 after the respondent failed to nominate an arbitrator as per the arbitration agreement.

Acts & Sections

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 11, Section 12, Section 29A
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Dacoity and Murder Case — Key Evidence from Witness Testimonies.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Against High Court Order on FIR Registration. The police's failure to register an FIR for cognizable offences disclosed in the complaint constituted a grave miscarriage of justice, necessitating correction by the High C...