Supreme Court Modifies Arbitration Agreement for Dispute Resolution in Hydroelectric Project. The court determined that arbitration would proceed under the Bhutan Act, 2013, as agreed by both parties.

  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from a Contract Agreement executed on 14.04.2009 between the Punatsangchhu – 1 Hydroelectric Project Authority of Bhutan and Larsen & Toubro Ltd. for the construction of a hydroelectric project. The contract included provisions for arbitration to resolve disputes, specifying that the law applicable would be Bhutanese law and arbitration would occur in Thimphu. Following disputes regarding claims made by the contractor, a notice of arbitration was sent on 28.07.2020, to which the appellant agreed but insisted on the arbitration being governed by the Bhutan Act, 2013. The contractor subsequently filed an application under Section 11 of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of an arbitrator due to the appellant's failure to do so. The Delhi High Court ruled that the arbitration would be governed by the Indian Act, despite the Bhutan Act's enactment. The appellant then filed a special leave petition against this order. During hearings, both parties reached a consensus that the arbitration should proceed under the Bhutan Act, with the seat at Thimphu. The Supreme Court modified the High Court's order accordingly, allowing the tribunal to conduct hearings at convenient venues. The appeal was disposed of without costs.

Headnote

A) Arbitration Law - Applicability of Arbitration Acts - Jurisdiction and Applicable Law - Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 11; Bhutan Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2013 - The court determined that the arbitration would be governed by the Bhutan Act, 2013, as agreed by the parties, with the seat of arbitration at Thimphu, Bhutan. The modification was made in light of the consensus between the parties regarding the applicable law for arbitration (Paras 7-9).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the arbitration should be governed by the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or the Bhutan Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2013.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court modified the High Court's order, determining that arbitration would be conducted under the Bhutan Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2013, with the seat at Thimphu, Bhutan.

Law Points

  • Arbitration
  • Dispute Resolution
  • Jurisdiction
  • Contract Law
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2021 LawText (SC) (02) 236

Civil Appeal No.693 of 2021

2021-02-22

Indu Malhotra, Ajay Rastogi

Tushar Mehta, Ranjeet Kumar, Gourab Banerji

Punatsangchhu – 1 Hydroelectric Project Authority, Bhutan

Larsen & Toubro Ltd.

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

Nature of Litigation

Dispute regarding arbitration agreement and applicable law for dispute resolution.

Remedy Sought

The appellant sought to clarify the governing law for arbitration.

Filing Reason

Disputes arose from claims made by the contractor under the contract.

Previous Decisions

The Delhi High Court ruled that the arbitration would be governed by the Indian Act.

Issues

Applicability of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 vs. Bhutan Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2013 Seat of arbitration location

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued for the applicability of the Indian Act and New Delhi as the seat of arbitration. The respondent agreed to the Bhutan Act with Thimphu as the seat.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the parties' consensus on the governing law for arbitration under the Bhutan Act, 2013, should be honored, modifying the previous order accordingly.

Judgment Excerpts

The law to which the Contract is to be subject and according to which the Contract is to be construed shall be the law for the time being in force in Bhutan. The arbitration would be governed by the 1996 Act. The Order of the High Court stands modified to the extent that all disputes arising out of the Agreement shall be conducted in accordance with the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of Bhutan.

Procedural History

The appellant filed a special leave petition against the Delhi High Court's order, which had ruled on the applicability of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 11
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2013:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction for Criminal Breach of Trust Under Section 408 IPC Based on Admission and Audit Report. Petitioner's Admission of Misappropriation of Society Funds and Audit Report Showing Shortage Sufficient to Sustain Convictio...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Refusal to Approve Continuity of Service of Assistant Teacher. Education Officer's Order Set Aside for Being Unreasonable and Contrary to Government Resolution Dated 20th January 2016.