Supreme Court Allows Appointment of Sole Arbitrator in Arbitration Dispute — Ensures Impartiality in Arbitration Process. The court ruled that the appointment of an arbitrator who is an employee of the party to the dispute violates Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

In Favour of Accused
  • 4
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

This case involved an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by Glock Asia - Pacific Ltd. for the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator following a dispute with the Union of India regarding a contract for supplying Glock pistols. The Ministry of Home Affairs had issued a tender for the supply of 31,756 pistols, which was accepted, and the applicant fulfilled its contractual obligations by delivering the goods and receiving payment. However, upon the applicant's notification that the performance bank guarantee would not be extended, the respondent invoked the guarantee, leading to the arbitration notice issued by the applicant. The respondent contested the nomination of the arbitrator, citing a clause in the tender conditions that required arbitration to be conducted by an officer appointed by the Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs. The applicant argued that this clause was contrary to Section 12(5) of the Act, which prohibits the appointment of arbitrators with conflicts of interest. The court analyzed the submissions, referencing previous judgments and the statutory provisions, ultimately concluding that the appointment of a government employee as an arbitrator in this context was invalid due to the inherent conflict of interest. The court appointed a former judge of the Supreme Court as the Sole Arbitrator to ensure impartiality in the arbitration process.

Headnote

A) Arbitration Law - Appointment of Arbitrator - Conflict of Interest - Section 12(5) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The court held that the appointment of an arbitrator who is an employee of the party to the dispute violates the provisions of Section 12(5) which prohibits such appointments to ensure impartiality. The arbitration clause allowing the Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs to appoint an officer from the Ministry of Law was deemed invalid due to this conflict (Paras 19-22).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator by the Union of India, as per the arbitration clause, is valid under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and appointed Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising under the Conditions of Tender.

Law Points

  • Arbitration
  • Sole Arbitrator Appointment
  • Conflict of Interest
  • Section 11
  • Section 12(5)
  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act
  • 1996
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2023 LawText (SC) (05) 218

Arbitration Petition No. 51 of 2022

2023-05-19

Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.B. Pardiwala

Ramakrishnan Viraraghavan, Shayam D. Nandan, Aishwarya Bhati

M/S Glock Asia - Pacific Ltd.

Union of India

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

Nature of Litigation

Application for appointment of a Sole Arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Remedy Sought

Glock Asia - Pacific Ltd. sought the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator.

Filing Reason

Dispute arose from the invocation of a performance bank guarantee by the Union of India.

Previous Decisions

The respondent contested the nomination of the arbitrator based on the arbitration clause in the tender.

Issues

Validity of the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Conflict of interest arising from the appointment process.

Submissions/Arguments

The applicant argued that the appointment of a government employee as an arbitrator violates Section 12(5) of the Act. The respondent contended that the contract was valid as it was in the name of the President of India and that the appointment of an officer was permissible.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appointment of an arbitrator who is an employee of a party to the dispute is ineligible under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, ensuring impartiality in arbitration.

Judgment Excerpts

The arbitration clause which authorises the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, whose relationship with Union of India is that of an employee, to nominate an officer of the Ministry of Law and Justice to act as a Sole Arbitrator, clearly falls within the expressly ineligible category provided in Paragraph 1 of Schedule VII, read with Section 12(5) of the Act. We hereby appoint Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra, a former judge of this Court as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes arising under and in connection with the Conditions of Tender entered into between the parties.

Procedural History

The applicant filed an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 after the respondent invoked the performance bank guarantee, leading to a dispute regarding the appointment of an arbitrator.

Acts & Sections

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 11, Section 12(5)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Petitioners Challenging Enquiry Under Section 88 of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act Against Contractors and Suppliers. Enquiry Under Section 88 Cannot Be Conducted Against Persons Who Are Not Members, Past Members, or O...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Writ Petitions Challenging Seniority Lists Under Central Secretariat Service Rules Due to Lack of Evidence of Injustice. Petitioners Failed to Challenge the Validity of the Rules Governing Seniority and Promotion.