Supreme Court Appoints Sole Arbitrator in Arbitration Dispute Over Contractual Delays. The appointment of the Principal Secretary as an arbitrator was invalid due to his controlling influence over HARSAC, necessitating the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose between Haryana Space Application Centre (HARSAC) and M/s Pan India Consultants Pvt. Ltd. regarding the modernization of land records in Haryana. HARSAC, designated as the nodal agency for Geographic Information System applications, awarded a contract to the Respondent in 2011. The Respondent failed to complete the work within the stipulated time, leading HARSAC to invoke the Performance Bank Guarantee in 2014. The Respondent challenged this action in the Delhi High Court, which directed that the bank guarantees remain alive pending arbitration. An arbitration tribunal was constituted, but delays ensued, prompting the Respondent to file an application for extending the time for the award. The District Judge granted an extension, which HARSAC contested in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The High Court granted further extensions due to the pandemic. The Supreme Court found that the appointment of the Principal Secretary as an arbitrator was invalid under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as he had a controlling influence over HARSAC. Consequently, the court appointed Justice Kurian Joseph as a Sole Arbitrator to conclude the proceedings within six months, ensuring impartiality and adherence to the statutory requirements. The court directed both parties to share the arbitrator's fees equally and allowed the proceedings to be conducted virtually or at the seat of arbitration in Haryana.

Headnote

A) Arbitration Law - Appointment of Arbitrator - Ineligibility of Appointing Authority - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12(5) - The appointment of the Principal Secretary as an arbitrator was deemed invalid due to his controlling influence over the Appellant, violating the mandatory provisions of the Act. The court directed the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to ensure impartiality and expedite the arbitration process (Paras 17-18).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appointment of the Principal Secretary as an arbitrator was valid under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court appointed Justice Kurian Joseph as a Sole Arbitrator to conclude the arbitration proceedings within six months, finding the previous appointment invalid under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Law Points

  • Arbitration
  • Conciliation Act
  • 1996
  • Section 12(5)
  • Section 29A
  • Service Level Agreement
  • arbitration clause
  • appointment of arbitrator
  • performance bank guarantee
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2021 LawText (SC) (01) 156

Civil Appeal No. 131 of 2021

2021-01-20

Indu Malhotra, L. Nageswara Rao, Ajay Rastogi

HARYANA SPACE APPLICATION CENTRE, ANR.

M/S PAN INDIA CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.

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

Nature of Litigation

Dispute regarding the arbitration process and appointment of arbitrators.

Remedy Sought

HARSAC sought to challenge the extension of time granted for arbitration.

Filing Reason

The Respondent filed a suit against the invocation of the Performance Bank Guarantee and sought arbitration.

Previous Decisions

The Delhi High Court directed that the bank guarantees remain alive pending arbitration.

Issues

Validity of the appointment of the Principal Secretary as an arbitrator Delay in arbitration proceedings

Submissions/Arguments

HARSAC argued against the extension of time for the award The Respondent sought an extension citing delays caused by HARSAC

Ratio Decidendi

The appointment of an arbitrator must comply with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, particularly regarding the independence and impartiality of the arbitrator.

Judgment Excerpts

The tribunal is ready to pronounce the award forthwith. The appointment of the Principal Secretary, Government of Haryana as the nominee arbitrator of HARSAC would be invalid under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Procedural History

The Respondent filed a Civil Suit in 2014, which was disposed of directing the parties to arbitration. An arbitration tribunal was constituted in 2016, but delays occurred, leading to multiple applications for extension of time for the award.

Acts & Sections

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 12(5), Section 29A
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition of Bank Peon Challenging Dismissal for Misappropriation. Misappropriation of Funds by a Bank Employee Constitutes Breach of Trust Warranting Dismissal, Even with Admission and Restitution.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Municipal Corporation's Petitions Against Labour Court Awards in Regularisation of Daily Wage Workers. Held that daily wage employees who completed 240 days of continuous service are entitled to permanency and regularisati...