Supreme Court Allows Appellant in Arbitration Dispute Due to Failure to Appoint Arbitrator. Respondent Forfeited Right to Appoint Arbitrator Under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose between M/s Continental India Private Limited and the General Manager Northern Railway regarding the appointment of an arbitrator under their agreement. The appellant filed an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, after the respondent failed to appoint an arbitrator as per the arbitration clause in the agreement. The High Court allowed the application but directed the appointment of an arbitrator in accordance with the General Conditions of Contract (GCC), which the appellant contended was not applicable. The appellant argued that the GCC was neither signed by the parties nor referenced in the original agreement, and thus the High Court erred in its direction. The respondent's counsel did not dispute the failure to appoint an arbitrator but could not justify the applicability of the GCC. The Supreme Court analyzed the arbitration clause and concluded that the respondent forfeited its right to appoint an arbitrator due to its failure to act within the stipulated time. The court held that the High Court's direction to constitute an Arbitral Tribunal under the GCC was unsustainable and quashed that order. Instead, the court appointed a sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute, allowing the appeal and avoiding further delays in the arbitration process.

Headnote

A) Arbitration Law - Appointment of Arbitrator - Right to Appoint Forfeited - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 11(6) - The respondent failed to appoint an arbitrator as per the arbitration clause in the agreement, leading to the forfeiture of its right to appoint. The court held that the Chief Justice or his nominee was required to appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act (Paras 6-8).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the High Court erred in directing the appointment of an arbitrator under the General Conditions of Contract instead of appointing a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's order directing the appointment of an arbitrator under the GCC and appointed Smt. Justice R. Banumathi as a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute, allowing the appeal.

Law Points

  • Arbitration agreement
  • appointment of arbitrator
  • Section 11(6) Arbitration and Conciliation Act
  • 1996
  • General Conditions of Contract
  • forfeiture of right to appoint arbitrator
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2022 LawText (SC) (07) 124

Civil Appeal No. 4829 of 2022

2022-07-27

M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna

Shri Ramesh Singh, Shri K.M. Nataraj

M/s Continental India Private Limited

General Manager Northern Railway

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

Nature of Litigation

Dispute regarding appointment of an arbitrator under an agreement.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought appointment of a sole arbitrator.

Filing Reason

Respondent failed to appoint an arbitrator as per the arbitration clause.

Previous Decisions

High Court directed appointment of an arbitrator under the General Conditions of Contract.

Issues

Whether the High Court erred in directing the appointment of an arbitrator under the General Conditions of Contract instead of appointing a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant contended that the High Court erred in not appointing a sole arbitrator and that the GCC was not applicable. Respondent's counsel did not dispute the failure to appoint an arbitrator but could not justify the applicability of the GCC.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the failure to appoint an arbitrator as per the agreed procedure resulted in the forfeiture of the right to appoint, necessitating the appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Judgment Excerpts

The High Court has committed a serious error in directing to constitute an Arbitral Tribunal in terms of the provisions of the GCC, which are not binding to the parties. The Chief Justice or his nominee was required to appoint a sole arbitrator/arbitrator in exercise of powers under Section 11(6) of the Act.

Procedural History

The appellant filed an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, after the respondent failed to appoint an arbitrator as per the arbitration clause in the agreement. The High Court allowed the application but directed the appointment of an arbitrator under the GCC, leading to the present appeal.

Acts & Sections

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 11(6)
  • General Conditions of Contract: Clause 32, Clause 64(3)(b)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Compensation Award for Land Acquisition in Haryana — Market Value Determined.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Against Conviction for Murder — Upholds Life Imprisonment. The court found no substantial grounds to interfere with the trial court's findings, affirming the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section ...