Case Note & Summary
The arbitration original petition was filed by an export-oriented seafood processing company against an insurance company to appoint a Presiding Arbitrator for constituting an Arbitral Tribunal under the New India Bharat Laghu Udyam Suraksha Policy. The petitioner had insured its assets for Rs.30 Crores and suffered extensive damage due to flooding in December 2023, leading to a claim of Rs.27.50 Crores. The insurance company paid Rs.4.17 Crores but disallowed Rs.4.76 Crores citing an excluded peril of 'change in temperature'. The petitioner invoked the arbitration clause after the parties failed to agree on a Sole Arbitrator. The respondent contended that the dispute was outside the scope of arbitration as it involved liability, not just quantum. The court analyzed the arbitration clause and relevant precedents, concluding that the existence of a dispute and an arbitration clause warranted the appointment of a Presiding Arbitrator. Consequently, the court appointed Mr. Srinath Sridevan as the Presiding Arbitrator, directing that the arbitration be conducted at the Madras High Court Arbitration Centre. The petition was allowed without costs.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Appointment of Arbitrator - Court's Role in Appointment - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 11 - The court held that it must appoint a Presiding Arbitrator when parties fail to agree, as the existence of an arbitration clause and a dispute is sufficient for intervention. (Paras 18-19).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the court should appoint a Presiding Arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 due to the inability of the parties to agree on one.
Final Decision
The court appointed Mr. Srinath Sridevan as the Presiding Arbitrator, directing that the arbitration be conducted at the Madras High Court Arbitration Centre in accordance with the relevant rules.
Law Points
- Arbitration
- Insurance
- Dispute Resolution
- Appointment of Arbitrator
- Exclusion Clauses
