11/10/2016

INDIANCOUNCILOFARBITRATION

JudgmentsandAwards
Section10,11&2(1)(b)EffectofAgreementprovidingforonly2arbitrators
2002(1)RAJ381(SC)
NarayanPrasadLohiaVsNikunjKumarLohia
Thiscaseprobedintothequestionwhetheranarbitrationagreementbecomesinvalidonthegroundthatitprovidedforappointmentofonly2
arbitrators.
Itwasheldthatevenifthepartiesprovidedforappointmentof2arbitrators,theagreementdoesnotbecomeinvalid.UnderSection11(3)the
twoarbitratorsshouldthenappointathirdarbitratorwhoshallactaspresidingarbitrator.However,suchanappointmentshouldpreferablybe
madeinthebeginning,eventhoughthetwoarbitratorsmayalsoappointa3rdarbitratoratalaterstage,ie.Ifandwhentheydiffer.This
ensuresthatonadifferenceofopinionthearbitrationproceedingsarenotfrustrated.Butifthe2arbitratorsagreeandgiveacommonaward,
thereisnofrustrationoftheproceedings.Insuchacasetheircommonagreementwouldhaveprevailed,evenifthe3rdarbitratorhad
differed.
Section10(1),11(6),2(1)(f),7,34&31(8)appointmentofarbitratorcontrarytoagreement
2001(1)RAJ548(SC)
NationalAluminiumCompanyLtdVsMetalimpexLtd
TheArbitrationAgreementenvisaged2arbitratorswhointurnwouldappointanumpire.Onearbitratorwasappointedbythepetitionerwho
requestedtherespondenttoappointtheother.Onthefailureoftherespondenttodoso,thepetitionerapproachedtheChiefJusticefor
appointmentofsolearbitrator.
Itwasheldthatasolearbitratorcannotbeappointedinsuchcircumstancesintheabsenceofanagreementbetweenthepartiesinthis
regard.Sincethearbitrationagreementenvisages2arbitratorswhointurnwouldappointthepresidingarbitrator,itmaynotbelegalto
appointthesolearbitrator.Ifboththepartieshadbeenrepresentedbeforethecourtandtheyhadagreed,asolearbitratorcouldhavebeen
appointed.
Section11Failuretoappointarbitratorwithinlimitation
2001(4)RAJ106(Ori)
RatnakarPradhanVsMahanadiCoalfieldsLtd
Therewasacontractbetweenthepartiesforexecutionofwork,whichenvisagedthatalldisputesweretobesettledbyasolearbitrator
appointedbytheCMDoftherespondent.Oncethedisputearose,inspiteofnoticebythepetitioner,noarbitratorwasappointedbythe
respondent,thereforethepetitionerapproachedthecourtu/s11.Thereaftertherespondentappointedanarbitratorandcontendedthatthey
wantedtoexplorethepossibilityofconciliation.
ItwasheldthatundertheNewAct,therecanbeconciliationevenaftertheappointmentofarbitratorandtherespondenthadnojustification
forthelaxityintheiractions.Itisapparentthattherespondentappointedthearbitratoronlyafteritwasbroughttotheirnoticethatan
applicationhadbeenalreadyfiledintheCourt.Therespondent,havingfailedtoexercisetheirpowerwithinareasonableperiod,cannot
thereafterinsistthatthearbitratorappointedbythemmustcontinue.Thereforethecourthasappointedanarbitrator.
Section11,9,12&13Determinationofvalidityoftheappointment
2001(4)RAJ595(Gau)
RanjulBaruahVsNumaligarhRefineryLtd
Theapplicantraisedareferenceofdisputetoarbitrationunderacontractforconstructionwork.Onthefailureonthepartoftheappointing
authority,thecontractor(applicant)appointedthearbitratoraspertermsofclauseofagreement.Afterinitiationofproceedings,theopposite
partyappliedforstayofproceedings,whichwasallowed.Hencethisapplicationforvacationofstaywasfiledbytheapplicant.
Itwasheldthatareadingoftheprovisionsofthearbitralclauseindicatedthatthecontractorwasauthorizedbyagreementtoappointoneof
thepersonsfromthepanelforwardedbyhimonfailureonthepartoftheappointingauthoritytoactuponthepanel.TheChiefJusticecomes
inonlywhenthepartiesfailtoactonanagreedprocedure.Butinagivencase,wheretheagreementprovidesalternativelypowersof
appointmentwitheitherofthepartiesandthearbitratorisappointedbyoneofthem,suchappointmentcannotbetreatedasillegalmerely
becausetheotherpartydoesnotagree.
Intheinstantcase,theappointingauthorityfailedtoforwardthepanelof3namesforselectionbythecontractorandalsofailedtoselectany
personfromthepanelforwardedbythecontractor.Itwasonlythenthecontractorinvokedhispowersofappointmentaspertermsofthe
agreement.Theappointmentofthearbitratorhasbeenincompliancewiththeagreementinletterandspiritandthereforethestayorderwas
vacated.
Section11&2(1)(e)Arbitrabilityofdispute
2001(4)RAJ595(Gau)
RanjulBaruahVsNumaligarhRefineryLtd
Thequestionofarbitrabilityofthedisputewasdeterminedinthismatterandthepleaoftheoppositeparty,thatthereisnoreferabledispute,
hencetheappointmentofsolearbitratorcouldnotbesustained,wasrejectedbythecourt.
Itwasheldthatwhenadisputeisraisedbyapartytoanarbitrationagreementanddeniedbytheotherparty,ithastobetreatedasadispute
withinthemeaninghtthearbitrationclausetobeadjudicatedbythetribunal.OneofthemainobjectsoftheActistominimizethesupervisory
roleofcourtsinthearbitralprocess.Theobjectionraisedbytheoppositeparty,therefore,isexclusivelywithinthejurisdictionofandmaybe
placedbeforethearbitraltribunal.Thecourt,asdefinedinSection2(1)(e)cannotbemovedforadecisioninthismatter.

Section11&16powertodeterminearbitrabilityofdispute

2002(3)RAJ88(Del)
EarnestBuildersVsUnionofIndia
ThepoweroftheChiefJusticeand/oritsdesignateandthearbitratorwasdiscussedinthiscase.Inthepresentcase,thepersonadesignate,
havingnominatedthearbitrator,paradoxicallyhimselfproceededtoactasanarbitratortodecidesomeoftheclaimsfellwithintheexcepted
categoryandwerenotarbitrable.
Itwasheldthatsuchanactionundertakenbytheappointingauthoritywasbeyondthescopeofhisjurisdictiontoreferthepartiesto
arbitration.Itisforthearbitratortodecidewhetherhecouldadjudicateuponaparticularclaiminthelightofthecontractbetweentheparties.
U/s11,theChiefJusticeorhisdesignate,whileexercisinghispowerunderthesaidprovisions,cannotentertainordecidetheissueslike
existenceofarbitrationagreement,itsvalidityorscopeorjurisdictionofthearbitratortodecidethedisputesthataresoughttobereferredto
hisarbitration.TheonlyactiontheChiefJusticeisrequiredtotakeistonominateanarbitrator(s),ifapartyfailstodosowithinaspecifiedtime

http://www.icaindia.co.in/icanet/judgment2.htm

1/7

11/10/2016

INDIANCOUNCILOFARBITRATION
afterarequesttodosohadbeenmade.Regardmustbehadtothequalificationsthatarerequiredofanarbitratorbytheagreementofthe
parties.Allotherissuesaretobelefttothetribunal.

Section11comparisonwiththeoldAct

2001(3)RAJ172(AP)
SriVenkateshwaraConstructionCoVsUnionofIndia
Thiscasediscussedthepowerofthecourttodecidedissueslikeexistenceofarbitrationagreement,itsscopeandthejurisdictionofthe
arbitratortodecidedsuchquestions.
Heldthat,undertheprovisionsoftheoldAct,thepowertoappointanarbitrator/(s)incaseswherethepartieshavefailedtodoso,was
conferreduponthecourtundersections8and20.OneimportantaspectwasthatSection20notonlyempoweredthecourttoappoint
arbitrators,butalsoempoweredittomakeareferenceofthedisputestosucharbitrators.SuchapowerisabsentinthenewAct.Makinga
significantdeparturefromtheoldposition,nowthepowerofappointinganarbitratorfallsnotuponthecourtbutupontheChiefJusticeorhis
designate.
ItisalsosignificanttonoteherethatthelegislationhasdeviatednotonlyfromtheOldAct,butalsofromtheUNCITRALModelLaw(Article
11)whichauthorizesacourttoappointarbitrators.Thisdeviationwasmadewithanintentiontocurtainthetimeconsuminglitigation
regardingmattersrelatingtoappointmentofarbitrators.PastexperienceshowedthatSections8and20hadbecomebreedinggroundsfor
suchcumbersomelitigations.AlsosignificantisthefactthatthedecisionoftheChiefJusticeinmakingtheappointmentisfinal,thusaimingto
makethisdecisionimmunefromjudicialintervention.

Section11Applicationunmaintainableafteravailingrelieffromanotherforum

2003(3)RAJ410(MP)
BasantKumarVsUnitedIndiaInsuranceCompanyLtd
Onadisputehavingarisen,thepetitioneravailedoftheremedyundertheConsumerActandobtainedanorderinhisfavourgranting
compensation,inspiteofaremedybeingavailableundertheArbitrationAct.Thereafter,thepetitionerbeingdissatisfiedwiththeamount
grantedbytheConsumerCourt,filedasuitforappointmentofanarbitrator.
Itwasheldthatoncetheclaimhasbeenadjudicatedonmerit,itisnotopentochallengethatorderbyhavingrecoursebeforethearbitrator.
AnarbitratorcannotbeallowedtositovertheorderoftheDistrictForumorStateCommission,particularlywhenthematterhasbeen
adjudicatedonmerits.Thepetitionercannotnowavailbenefitofarbitrationthoughinitiallyitwasopenforhimtochoosetheremedy.The
orderpassedundertheConsumerActisfinal.

Section11Requirementofexistenceofarbitrationagreement

2003(4)RAJ499(Kar)
UBGlobalCorporationLtdVsKaveriImpex
ThescopeofthepoweroftheChiefJustice/hisnomineedesignateu/s11wasdiscussedinthiscase.Itwasheldthatthepowerand
jurisdictionoftheChiefJustice/hisdesignatetoappointanarbitraltribunaldependsontheexistenceofanarbitrationagreement.When
thereisnoarbitrationagreement,apartyhasnorighttofileapetitionu/s11andtheChiefJustice/hisdesignatewillhavenojurisdictionto
appointanarbitrator.Suchapowercanonlyemergeonlywhere(a)allpartiesadmitoragreethatthereisanarbitrationagreementor(b)the
ChiefJusticeorhisdesignateissatisfiedprimafacieabouttheexistenceofthearbitrationagreement.

Section11limitationformakingapplicationforappointmentofarbitrator
2000(1)RAJ175(AP)
MedaNarsimhuluVsCouncilofScientificandIndustrialResearch
Thepowertodecidethequestionoflimitationformakinganapplicationu/s11forappointmentofarbitratorwasdiscussedinthismatter.The
Courtheldthatitisforthearbitratortodecidedtheobjectionthattheclaimisbarredbylimitation.ThejurisdictionconferredontheChief
Justiceorhisdesignatedoesnotcomprehendthepowertodecidedebatableandarguablequestionswhichcouldotherwisebedecidedby
thearbitrator.

Section11(4)Delayinappointmentofarbitrator

1998(2)RAJ78(Del)
MMTCLtdVsTrimurteeFertilizersLtd
Thepetitionerhadsentanoticetotherespondenton4.12.1996,requestinghimtoappointthearbitrator,inresponsetowhichtherespondent
statedthatitneeded15daystimeforsuchappointmentastheirmanagingdirectorwasoutofstation.Thearbitratorwasdulyappointedon
22.1.1997immediatelyafterthereturnofthemanagingdirector.Thequestionwaswhethersuchanappointmentwasvalid.
Itwasheldthattherewasneitherdelayinappointmentnoranyinclinationontherespondent'spartnottoappointanarbitratorwithinthe
stipulatedperiod.Thelegislatureinitswisdomhasenactedthe1996Actandhasusedtheexpression'shall'inSection11(4)toachievethe
objectiveofhavingarbitrationthroughtheforumofarbitrationattheearliestpossibleopportunity.Theideaistosafeguardtheeffortofone
partynottoscuttlethecontractualobligationwhichtheyundertookwhileenteringintoanarbitrationagreement,bynotappointingan
arbitratorafternoticehasbeenservedtotheoppositeparty.Therefore,ifapartyfailstoappointanomineearbitratorafterreceiptofnoticeto
doso,thecourtcomesintoplayandontherequestoftheaggrievedparty,shallappointthearbitrator.

Section11maintainabilityofcriminalcomplaintafterreferenceofdisputetoarbitrator

http://www.icaindia.co.in/icanet/judgment2.htm

2/7

11/10/2016

INDIANCOUNCILOFARBITRATION
2002(4)RAJ625(Bom)
AtlazDegiTelPvtLtdVsAtlazTechnologyPvtLtd
Therewasanagreementwherebythepetitionerwastopurchaserespondent'sbusinessunit,pursuanttowhichthepetitionerissuedpost
datedcheques.Adisputearosebetweenthepartiesandthepetitionerappliedu/s11forappointmentofarbitrator.Inthemeanwhile,the
respondentfiledasuitu/s138oftheNegotiableInstrumentsAct.ThePetitionercontendedthatthedisputewasessentiallyofcivilnatureand
initiationofcriminalproceedingsbywayofshortcutsofotherremedieswasunacceptable.
Itwasheldthatmerelybecauseanacthasacivilprofileisnotsufficienttodenudeitofitscriminaloutfit.Theprovisionsincorporatedinthe
agreementforreferringthedisputetoarbitrationisnotaneffectivesubstituteforacriminalprosecutionwhenthedisputedactisanoffence.
Arbitrationisaremedyforaffordingreliefstothepartyaffectedbythebreachofagreementbutthearbitratorcannotconductatrialofanyact
whichamountstoanoffence,albeitthesameactmaybeconnectedwiththedischargeofanyfunctionundertheagreement.
Althoughthetransactionisquestionisacommercialtransactionarisingoutofanagreement,offenceu/s138NIActappearstohavebeen
committedinthecourseofsuchtransactionandassuchtheprocessissuedu/s138shouldnotbequashed.

Section11Panelofarbitratorsasperagreementnotnecessary

2003(3)RAJ214(AP)
KVenkateswarluVsStateofAndhraPradesh
Therewasanagreementbetweenthepartiesaccordingtowhichapanelof3arbitratorswastobeappointedintheeventadisputearose.
Onepartyfailedtoactupontherequestoftheotherpartyforappointmentthereforetheotherpartyapproachedthecourtforappointmentof
anarbitrator.Theissuethatcameupwaswhetheritwasincumbentonthecourttoappointapanelof3arbitratorsaspertheagreement.
ItwasheldthatinsuchacasetheagreementofthepartiesceasestoexistandSection11propriovigorecomesintooperation.Thereis
nothinginSection11whichordainstheChiefJusticeorhisdesignatetoappointapanelofarbitratorsaspertheagreement.Underthe
schemeofSection11,theChiefJusticeshallappointanarbitratorattherequestofthepartywheretheotherpartyfailstoappointanarbitrator
within30daysfromthedateofrequestorwherethe2appointedarbitratorsfailtoagreeonthe3rdarbitratorwithin30daysfromthedateof
theirappointment.
Oncetheagreementinthatregardceaseswhenthepartyfailstoagreeuponthesame,theChiefJusticeisfreetoappointasolearbitrator
eveninrespectofmatterswherethepartyagreedtohavethedisputeresolvedby3arbitrators.

Section11(2)&(6),12,13,16(1)appointmentofarbitratorwithoutsettingasideappointmentbyparties

2000(3)RAJ415(MP)
MukeshKumarAgrawalVsRajKumarAgarwal
Therewasadisputeaboutthedissolutionofafirmandthepartnersfixedaprocedureforappointmentofarbitrators.Someofthepartners
appointedthearbitratorandtheremainingpartnersapproachedtheChiefJusticeu/s11,whoappointedthearbitrator.
ThisappointmentbytheChiefJusticewasheldnotvalidanditwasfurtherheldthatoncethepartieshaveappointedanarbitrator,whether
rightorwrong,thereisaprocedureundertheActtochallengehisauthority.Theapplicantcannotbypassthatprocedureanddirectlyfilean
applicationu/s11.Oncethearbitratorhasalreadybeenappointed,thereisnooccasionfortheChiefJusticetoexercisehispowersu/s11.
Thearbitratorisalreadyseizedofthematteranditisforhimtodecidewhetherhewasvalidlyorinvalidlyappointed.

Section11(2)&(6)Determinationofexistenceofdispute

2002(3)RAJ354(Del)
SatyaPrakashandBrothersVsMunicipalCorporationofDelhi
Therespondenthadawardedacontracttothepetitionerforimprovementofroads.Therespondentfailedinhandingoverunhinderedsite
inspiteofrepeatedverbalandwrittenrequestsduetowhichtherewasdelayincompletionofworkbythepetitionerwhosufferedaloss.The
petitionersentanoticerequestingappointmentofarbitratortowhichtherespondentgavenoreplyandhencethepetitionerwascompelledto
approachtheChiefJustice.Therespondentcontendedthatthedisputewasnonexistence.
Thecourt,whilerejectingtherespondent'scontention,heldthatoncethepetitionerisclaimingaspecificamountandthesamehasbeen
specificallyadmitted,thedisputemustbetakentohavebeeninexistence.Also,despitenotice,theMCDhadnotappointedanarbitrator
thereforetherewasnooptionforthecourtexcepttoactunderSection11(6)toappointanarbitrator.

Section11(2)&(6)Limitationperiodforappointmentofarbitrator

2000(3)RAJ256(Del)
AkshayaJainVsAirportsAuthorityofIndia
Thiscaseexploredtheissueofthelimitationperiodforappointmentofarbitratorbytheappointingauthorityindomesticandinternational
arbitration.
Itwasheldthattheappointingauthoritycannotappointanarbitratorafter60daysandbynostretchofimaginationcanaperiodof11months
beconsideredreasonable.Evenininternationalarbitration,atimeframeof60dayshasbeenprovidedafterwhichonthefailureofthe
appointingauthoritytoappointanarbitratortheappointingauthority'srighttoappointpassesontotheSecretaryGeneralofthePermanent
CourtofArbitration,whoisrequiredtodesignateanappointingauthority.Therefore,theperiodwithinwhichanarbitratormaybeappointed
bytheappointingauthorityinadomesticarbitrationcaninnoeventbemorethan60days.
Thedominantfeatureunderlyingthe1996Actisexpeditiousdisposal.Inparticular,evenSections11(4)and11(5)clearlysetouta30days
timelimitfortakingactionbyapartywhenmorethan1arbitratoristobeappointed.Thus,eventhoughsection11(6)doesnotstipulatean
explicittimelimit,yetinherentintheothersectionsofSection11istheelementofexpedition.Sections11(4)and11(5)certainlyprovidea
guidanceifnotthetimelimittobetakenbytheappointingauthority.

http://www.icaindia.co.in/icanet/judgment2.htm

3/7

11/10/2016

INDIANCOUNCILOFARBITRATION

Section11(5)&10Groundsforappointmentofarbitrator

1998(3)RAJ248(Del)
InternationalPharmaceuticalsVsUnionofIndia
TherewasanagreementbetweenthepetitionerandMinistryofHealthandFamilyWelfare(respondent)forsupplyofmedicinaldrugs.There
wasasubsequentdemandofadditionalsuppliesatthesamerates,termsandconditions,eventhoughthiswasnotstipulatedinthe
agreement,whichwasapprovedbythethenMinisterofHealth.Therespondentlatercancelledthecontractcontendingthattheagreement
wasvoidsincetherewasnosanctionunderArticle299oftheConstitution.
Whilerejectingtherespondent'scontention,itwasheldthateveninthewrittenstatementitwasmentionedthattheorderforadditional
supplieswereapprovedbythethenMinisterwhoorderedthatthesuppliesbepurchased.Intermsoftheoriginalagreement,thesupplies
weremadebythepetitionertotherespondentandtherespondentthemselveshastreatedtheenhancementoftheearlierorderatthesame
rates,termsandconditions.Nowtotakeastandthattheagreementisvoidandenforceableiswithoutanybasis.

Section11(5)Appointmentofindependentarbitrator

1998(1)RAJ69(AP)
MarshallCorporationLtdVsUnionofIndia
Therewasadelayinappointmentofarbitratorbytherespondentdespitevariousreminders.Thearbitratorwasappointedsubsequenttothe
filingoftheapplicationsseekingtheappointmentofthearbitratorandtothefilingofthecountersoftherespondent.
Itwasheldthatinviewofsuchlaxconductoftherespondentandtheirfailuretoappointthearbitratorinspiteofseveralrequestsmadebythe
petitioner,therespondentsshallbedeemedtohaveforfeitedtheirrighttoappointthearbitratorascontemplatedunderClause70ofthe
Generalconditionsofthecontractandthecourtisentitledtoappointanindependentarbitratorofitschoiceforthedisputeinhand.

Section11(6)&(8)Forfeitureofrespondent'srighttoappointarbitrator

2001(2)RAJ176(Del)
MuconIndia(P)LtdVsDelhiVidyutBoard
Thiscasemadeitclearthattherespondentwouldforfeititsrighttoappointanarbitratoraftertakingrecourseu/s11(6).Itwasheldthatu/s11
(6)oftheActwherenotimelimitisprescribediftheoppositepartyhasnotmadeanappointmentwithinaperiodof30daysofthedemandto
appointanarbitrator,therighttoappointisnotforfeitedandcontinues.Butsuchrightoftheoppositepartyceasestoexistifanapplicationu/s
11(6)ismovedforappointmentofarbitrator.Thereforeanappointmenthastobemadebytheoppositepartybeforethefilingofapplication
u/s11(6).Iftheappointmentismadeafterthefilingoftheapplicationu/s11(6),thensuchanappointmentisanullityandinfactno
appointmentintheeyesoflaw.

Section11(6)&(5)Circumstancessurroundingappointmentofarbitrator

2000(3)RAJ181(SC)
DatarSwitchgearsLtdVsTataFinanceLtd
Thecircumstancessurroundingtheappointmentofanarbitratoru/s11(6)andthefailureofprocedureunderdifferentcircumstanceswere
discussedinthiscase.
Accordingtothefacts,theappellanthadnotissuedanynoticetotherespondentseekingappointmentofarbitrator.Therespondenthad
askedtheappellanttomakepaymentwithinastipulatedperiodandindicatedthatintheeventofnonpaymentwithin14days,thesaidnotice
itselfwastobetreatedasthenoticeunderthearbitrationclauseintheagreement.Thisisnotacasewheretheappellantrequestedandgave
anoticeperiodforappointmentofarbitratorandtherespondentfailedtocomply.Itispertinenttonotethattheappellantdidnotfilean
applicationevenaftertherespondentinvokedSection9seekinginterimrelief.
ItwasheldthatSection11(5)canbeinvokedbyapartywhohasrequestedtheotherpartytoappointanarbitratorandthelatterfailstomake
anyappointmentwithin30daysfromthereceiptofthenotice.Anapplicationu/s11(6)canbefiledwhenthereisafailureofprocedurefor
appointmentofarbitrator.Thisfailurecanariseunderdifferentcircumstances.Itcanbeacasewhereapartywhoisboundtoappointan
arbitratorrefusestodosoorwherethe2appointedarbitratorsfailtoappointthe3rdarbitrator.Iftheappointmentofanarbitratorisentrusted
toanypersonorinstitutionandsuchpersonorinstitutionfailstodischargesuchfunction,theaggrievedpartycanapproachtheChiefJustice
forappointmentofarbitrator.Inthiscase,itcannotbesaidthattherewasafailureofprocedureasprescribedbytheAct.

Section11(6)Deviationfromtermsofagreementnotpermissible

2001(4)RAJ130(Del)
JagdishPrasadAggarwalVsCimmcoBirlaLtd
TherewasanagreementbetweenthepartiesthatallquestionsofdisputesshallbereferredtoasolearbitratorappointedbythePresidentof
therespondent.However,thearbitratorwasappointedbytheExecutiveDirector&ChiefOperatingOfficerandtheissuethatarosewas
whethersuchwaspermissibleornot.
Whileconfirmingthatsuchanappointmentwasimproper,itwasheldthatoncethepartiesenterintoanagreementspellingoutcovenantsin
specificandcategoricalterms,itisnotopentoanyofthepartiestodeviatefromthosetermseveninthematterofappointmentofarbitrator.
Anyamountofinfractionofsuchatermofagreementvitiatestheappointmentofarbitrator.Justasthearbitratorcannottransversebeyondthe
termsoftheagreementwheneverreferenceofdisputeismadetohim,soisthepositioninthecaseofappointmentofarbitratorwherethereis
aspecificstipulationthataparticularpersonshallhavetheauthoritytoappointanarbitrator.

Section11(6)Judicialreviewoforderpassedu/s11(6)

http://www.icaindia.co.in/icanet/judgment2.htm

4/7

11/10/2016

INDIANCOUNCILOFARBITRATION
2001(1)RAJ401(Bom)
ChiefEngineer,WesternZoneIICentralPublicWorksDepartmentVsPanditShankarraoKulkarni
ThiswritpetitionchallengesanorderpassedbytheSingleJudgewherebytheSingleJudgeappointedanarbitratoranddeclaredthatthe
appointmentofanarbitratormadebythepetitionerwasnullandvoid.
ItwasheldthattheorderpassedbytheSingleJudgeappointinganarbitratoru/s11(6)wasanadministrativeone.Everyadministrativeorder
passedbyastatutoryauthorityissubjecttojudicialreviewbythiscourtandanorderpassedu/s11(6)cannotbeanexceptiontotherule.In
theinstantcase,theimpugnedordercannotbesaidtobemerelyanadministrativeoneasitcarriedajudicialpronouncementregardingthe
statusoftheorderpassedbythepetitionerasbeinganullityinlawimplyingthattheorderisquashedandsetaside.
ItwasfurtherheldthatalthoughtheActhasaimedatexpeditiousconclusionofarbitrationproceedings,itdoesnotmeanthatthepowersof
thisCourtunderarticle227and227oftheConstitutionaretakenaway.Themerefactthatduringthependencyofthispetition(filedon
4.5.2000),thearbitratorpassedhisaward(on4.7.2000),wouldnotshutthedoorsofthiscourtandthepetitionwouldnotbecomein
fructuous.Ifthearbitratorhasactedwithoutanauthorityinlaw,theentirearbitralproceedingswouldstandvitiated.Thelegalityofhis
appointmentordergoestotheveryrootofthematterandsuchanorderisthefoundationofthearbitralproceedings.Oncesuchanorderis
heldtobeillegal,theentireproceedingsmustbeheldtobenullandvoidabinitio.

Section11(6)Interpretationof'NecessaryMeasure'

2002(4)RAJ437(Kar)
JLPrasadVsGeneralManager,SouthernRailway,Chennai
Therewasanagreementcontainingthearbitrationclauseandprescribingtheprocedureforappointmentofarbitrator.Thepetitionerissued
noticeseekingreferenceofdisputetothearbitrator.Therespondentdidnottakeanystepwithin30daysfromthereceiptofthenotice.The
questionarosewhetheranindependentarbitratorshouldbeappointed.
Itwasheldthatwherethereisnoagreedappointmentprocedureandapartyfailstoappointhisarbitratororconcurintheappointmentofsole
arbitratoruponrequestofaparty,theChiefJusticeappointsthearbitrator.Butwheretheappointmentprocedureisagreedandifapartyfails
toactasrequiredundertheagreedprocedure,apartycanonlyrequesttheChiefJusticetotakethe'necessarymeasure'whichhastobe
takenundertheappointmentprocedure.'Necessarymeasure'isensuringthatthepartiesgiveeffecttotheirarbitrationagreement,firstlyby
directingthemtotakestepsaspertheirappointmentprocedureandthenbyensuringthatthearbitrationagreementisnotrenderednugatory
byoneofthepartiesrefusingtoactintermsoftheprescribedprocedure.
Section11(6)viewstheterm'necessarymeasure'astakingstepstogiveeffecttotheprescribedappointmentprocedure.Itprovidesthatwhen
apartyfailstoactaspertheappointmentprocedure,theotherpartymayrequesttheChiefJusticetotakenecessarymeasure,unlessthe
agreementontheappointmentprocedureprovidesothermeansforseekingtheappointment.Thus,theappointmentprocedureistobe
ignoredonlyifthearbitrationagreementspecifiesothermeansforsecuringtheappointment.
Therefore,inapetitionu/s11(6),theChiefJusticeshouldinthefirstinstancetakethemeasureofactivating/enforcingtheagreedprocedure
bydirectingthepartiestoactintermsoftheappointmentprocedure.Ifinspiteofsuchordereitherpartyfailstoactsowithinthetimeframeas
fixed,thentheChiefJusticecanappointanindependentarbitrator.

Section11(6),(2)&(5)Interpretationof'NecessaryMeasure'

2000(2)RAJ487(Del)
EsselShyamCommunicationsLtdVsUnionofIndia
Thepartiesintheinstantcaseagreedtotheappointmentofaparticularpersonorhisnomineeasanarbitrator.Thedesignatedarbitratorwas
ahighrankingofficer,however,therespondentfailedtoreferthedisputestotheappointedagreedarbitratorinspiteofnotice.
ItwasheldthattheCourtgetsthepowertotakenecessarymeasuresforsecuringtheappointmentbutitwillhavenopowertoappoint
anotherarbitrator.Takingthe'necessarymeasureforsecuringtheappointment'inthesecircumstanceswouldmeantoappointtheagreed
arbitrator,ifany.Theagreementofthepartieshastobegiveneffecttoandcannotbeignored.Inthepresentcase,thereisnovalidground
nottobindthepartiestotheiragreedarbitratornortoappointanotherarbitratorinsupercessionoftheagreedarbitration.

Section11(6)&20Determinationofplaceofarbitration

2002(2)RAJ542(Del)
GasAuthorityofIndiaLtdVsGobindGlass&Industries
Thepartieshadappointedtheirownarbitrators,however,neitherthepartiesnortheappointedarbitratorshadappointedthepresiding
arbitrator.ThepartieshadagreedthattheplaceofarbitrationwouldbeeitheratDelhioratAhmedabad.Also,inthemeanwhile,theparties
werelockedinacivilsuitatAhmedabadexecutionofalldocumentsandsuppliesweremadefromAhmedabad.
Regardingtheissueoftheplaceofarbitration,itwasheldthatadmittedly,bothpartieshadagreedontheplaceofarbitrationeitheratDelhior
atAhmedabad.Inviewofthegivencircumstancesandthefailureofthepartiesaswellastheappointedarbitratorstoreachanagreementto
appointthepresidingarbitratorandkeepinginviewthehardshipandinconveniencetherespondentwouldsufferandtheinordinatedelayin
theprocessofappointmentofpresidingarbitrator,coupledwiththefactthatthepartiesarealreadyinterlockedinacivilsuitatAhmedabad
haspersuadedthisCourttoappointapresidingarbitratorfromAhmedabad.

Section11(6)(a)Questionstobedecidedbythearbitrator

2001(4)RAJ306(Jha)
LalBabuSinghVsStateofBihar
Thiscaseclarifiedthekindofquestionstobedecidedbythearbitrator.Accordingtothefacts,anagreementwasenteredintobythepartiesin
1990andlatercancelledin1992.Oncethedisputearose,therespondentsintheircounteraffidavitdidnottakeadefencethattheclaimor
theapplicationwasbarredbylimitation.Theonlydefencewasthattheclaimwasinadmissible.

http://www.icaindia.co.in/icanet/judgment2.htm

5/7

11/10/2016

INDIANCOUNCILOFARBITRATION
Itwasheldthatthequestionwhethertheclaimisadmissibleornotandwhetherthepetitionerisentitledtotheamountclaimedbyhimareto
bedecidedbythearbitrator.Thepetitionerhadprayedthatanindependentsolearbitratormaybeappointedtoresolvethedispute.Onthis
prayer,therespondentdidnotsaythatanypersonotherthananindependentsolearbitratorbeappointed.Therefore,thepetitioner's
applicationisallowed.

Section11(6)(c)Determinationofprematurepetition

2001(3)RAJ167(del)
PasupatiFabricsLimitedVsSavaniFinancialLimited
Adisputearoserelatingtosubscribingpublicissueandtheagreementbetweenthepartiesprescribedthatthematterwasfirstrequiredtobe
referredtotheArbitrationCommitteeofDelhiStockExchange(DSE).Thepetitioneraccordinglyfiledthestatementofclaimwiththe
arbitrationcommitteeofDSEandtheDy.GeneralManagerwasrequestedtotakefurtheraction.TheDSEwrotethatitneveragreedto
conductthearbitrationproceedingsbetweenthepartiesandthemattercannotbereferredtoarbitration.
Itwasheldthatperusalofthepetitioner'sandDSE'slettersshowthatitwasalwaysunderstoodthatthearbitrationistobeconductedbythe
ArbitrationCommitteeofDSE.EvenintheDSE'sreply,referenceismadetotheDSEArbitrationCommitteebyDSEitself.Theobjectionof
DSEtothereferenceofdisputestoitsArbitrationCommitteewasnotthattheletterofrequestwasnotaddressedtotheCommittee,butthatit
wasrefusedonthegroundthatithadnotagreedtoconductsucharbitration.
ItwasfurtherheldthatthewritingoftheletterbythepetitionertoDSEforreferenceofdisputestotheArbitrationCommitteeofDSEissufficient
complianceoftheagreementbetweentheparties.OncetheDSEhasrefusedtoreferthemattertotheArbitrationCommitteeontheground
thatithadnotagreedtoreferenceofdisputestotheCommittee,theDSEhasfailedtoperformitsfunctionsentrustedbytheagreementand
thepresentpetitionforappointmentofanarbitratorbytheCourtismaintainableandisnotpremature.

Section11(6)Remedytochallengetheorder

2000(3)RAJ1(SC)
KonkanRailwayCorpnLtdVsMehulConstructionCo
Theimportantissueofremedytochallengeordersu/s11(6)wasdiscussedinthismatter.WhiledismissingthepetitionunderArticle32
againsttheorderu/s11(6),theCourtheldthatthenatureandfunctionperformedbytheChiefJusticeorhisnomineewasessentiallytoaid
theconstitutionofthearbitraltribunalandcannotbeheldtobeajudicialfunctionasotherwisetheLegislaturewouldhaveusedthe
expression'court'or'judicialauthority'insteadof'ChiefJustice'.ThereforeitisapparentthatanorderpassedbytheChiefJusticeunderthis
sectionisanadministrativeorder.
Thisbeingtheposition,evenanorderrefusingtoappointanarbitratorwillnotbeamenabletothejurisdictionofSupremeCourtunderArticle
136oftheConstitution.Theaggrievedparty,however,hasaremedytoapproachtheHighCourtforissuanceofawritmandamus,ifso
advised,inaccordancewithlaw.
ItwasalsoclarifiedthattheChiefJusticenothavingfunctionedasacourtoratribunalandtheorderbeingadministrativeinnature,the
observationsandfindingsarenotbindingandwillnotbetakenintoconsiderationbythearbitraltribunal,ifanobjectiontovalidityor
existenceofthearbitrationagreementistakenbeforeit.Suchobjections,iftaken,willbedecidedonitsownmerits.

Section11(8)Failureofrespondenttoappointwithintime

2001(4)RAJ243(Del)
VindhyaTelelinksLtdVsDepartmentofTelecommunications
TherewasanarbitrationclauseintheagreementbetweenthepartiesthatenvisagednootherpersonotherthantheDGoraperson
appointedbyhimshouldactasarbitrator.In1997,theplaintiffinvokedtheclause,however,thedefendant(DG)appointedthearbitratoronly
aftertheplaintifffiledthispresentpetition.
ItwasheldthattheDG,havingfailedtoappointthearbitratorwithintime,hadabdicatedhisrightstodosoandthecourtwillstepin,inhis
placetomakethepartiesadheretotheiragreement.Accordingly,thecourtdirectedthedefendanttosuggesttothepetitioner,5namesof
officersofappropriatestatuseligibletobeappointedasarbitratorandthepetitionerwasdirectedtoselect2namesfromthelist.Thereafter,
theDGwasaskedtochooseoneofthose2namesforappointmentasarbitrator.

Section11(9)Appointmentofarbitratorwhereonepartyisforeign

2000(3)RAJ436(SC)
MalaysianAirlinesSystemsBhdVsSticTravels(P)Ltd
ThiscasediscussedthescopeofappointmentofarbitratorswithrespecttoamatterarisinginanIndianCourtwhereoneofthepartiesisa
foreignpartyandtheotherpartyanIndiannational.
HeldthatinseveralcountrieswheretheUNCITRALModelisadopted,ithasbeenheldthatitisnotimpermissibletoappointanarbitratorofa
nationalityofoneoftheparties.Inlightofthefactthatthe1996ActisbasedontheUNCITRALModel,whichinArticle6(4)onlyspeaksof
'takingintoaccount'thenationalityasoneofthefactors,thecourtwasoftheviewthattheword'may'inSection11(9)wasnotintendedtobe
readas'shall'.
Whilethenationalityofthearbitratoristobekeptinview,thesectiondoesnotimplythattheproposedarbitratorisnecessarilydisqualified
becausehebelongstothenationalityofoneoftheparties.Theprovisionisnotmandatory.

more...

http://www.icaindia.co.in/icanet/judgment2.htm

6/7

11/10/2016

http://www.icaindia.co.in/icanet/judgment2.htm

INDIANCOUNCILOFARBITRATION

7/7