IMPORTANT POINTS
JV agreement referred to "Singapore Chamber of Commerce" for appointment of arbitrator. Singapore Chamber of Commerce not being Arbitration Institution having its own Rules for appointment of Arbitrators, Clause rightly construed to mean the reference to "Singapore Chamber of Commerce" as to the "SIAC".
SIAC appointed an arbitrator who after contest by petitioner upheld its jurisdiction. Supreme Court cannot appoint an arbitrator at this stage u/s 11(6) of the 1996 Act.

Headnote:(a) Arbitration Law – Clause 30.2 of JV agreement – Parties becoming unable to name a sole Arbitrator by mutual agreement – Arbitrator to be appointed by Singapore Chamber of Commerce – "Singapore Chamber of Commerce" not being Arbitration Institution' having its own Rules for appointment of Arbitrators – Clause rightly construed to mean the reference to "Singapore Chamber of Commerce" as to the "SIAC". (Para 8)
       (b) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11(6) r/w clause 30.2 of JV Agreement – Respondent proposing name of sole arbitrator – Petitioner not agreeing – Respondent approaching SIAC under intimation to petitioner – Petitioner taking no pre-emptive steps – Raising question of jurisdiction before arbitrator – Arbitrator rejecting plea and upholding jurisdiction in partial award – Exercise of power under section 11(6) at this stage – Would amount to sitting in appeal over decision of SIAC appointing the arbitrator – would be inappropriate. (Para 9)
       (2013) 6 SCR 453 – Relied upon
       (2012) 9 SCC 552; (1998) 1 SCC 305 – Referred
       Facts of the case:
       Appointment of an Arbitrator under the Joint Venture Agreement dated 26th December, 2011 by and between the parties has been sought by means of the present application.
       Finding of the Court:
       Exercise of power u/s 11(6) of 1996 Act by Supreme Court at this stage would be inappropriate.
       Result: Appeal dismissed with liberty to petitioner to avail of other remedy.

JUDGMENT

1. Appointment of an Arbitrator under the Joint Venture Agreement dated 26th December, 2011 (for short "the JVA") by and between the parties has been sought by means of the present application.

2. There is no dispute between the parties with regard to the existence of the JVA and/or with regard to the fact that disputes and differences over the respective rights and liabilities of the parties under the JVA have surfaced. The Arbitration clause under the JVA is in the following terms:

“ARTICLE 30
30.1	If any dispute arises between any of the Parties hereto during the subsistence or thereafter, in connection with the validity, interpretation, implementation or alleged material breach of any provision of this JVA or regarding any question, including the question as to whether the termination of this JVA by any Party hereto has been legitimate, the Parties hereto shall endeavour to settle such dispute amicably. The attempt to bring about an amicable settlement is considered to have failed as soon as one of the Parties hereto, after reasonable attempts which attempt shall continue for not less than sixty (60) days, given fifteen (15) days notice thereof to the other Party in writing.
30.2	In case of such failure, the dispute shall be referred to sole arbitrator to be mutually agreed upon by the Parties. In case the Parties are not able to arrive at such an arbitrator, the arbitrator shall be appointed in accordance with the rules of arbitration of the Singapore Chamber of Commerce.
30.3	The arbitration proceedings shall be held at Singapore. The arbitration proceeding s shall be in English language. The award shall be substantiated in writing. The court of arbitration shall also decide on the costs of the arbitration proceedings. The award shall be binding on the disputing Parties subject to applicable laws and the award shall be enforceable in any competent court of law. The provisions of this clause shall survive the termination of this JVA for any reason whatsoever.
30.4	Each of the Parties agree and acknowledge that damages would be inadequate to compensate for the breach of this JVA by either Party, and each Party shall be entitled to equitable relief by way of interim injunction or specific performance by recourse to courts/judicial forum with appropriate jurisdiction.
ARTICLE 31
GOVERNING LAW
31.1	This JVA shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of India.”

3. There are certain facts and events which have occurred during the pendency of the present proceeding which must immediately be taken note of.

4. The parties are not in dispute that the "Singapore Chamber of Commerce" mentioned in clause 30.2 of the JVA is not an Arbitration Institution having any Rules for appointment of Arbitrators. However, construing the said reference to the "Singapore Chamber of Commerce" to be one to the "Singapore International Arbitration Centre" ("SIAC" for short), the first respondent, invoking the arbitration clause, had moved the said Authority i.e. SIAC for appointment of an Arbitrator. This was so done on 5th September, 2014. A copy of the said notice/intimation was received by the petitioner on 11th September, 2014. Thereafter, the petitioner had instituted the present proceeding on 15th September, 2014. In the meantime, the SIAC, exercising its powers under Section 8(2) read with Section 8(3) of the Singapore International Arbitration Act (Cap. 143A) (for short "the IAA"), had appointed one Mr. Steven Y.H. Lim as the sole Arbitrator. In a preliminary meeting between the parties and the learned sole Arbitrator held on 30th October, 2014, it was indicated by the petitioner that it would be challenging the jurisdiction of the sole

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2014 Supreme(SC) 891

SUPREME COURT OF INDIARANJAN GOGOI, J.PRICOL LIMITED – PETITIONERVERSUSJOHNSON CONTROLS ENTERPRISE LTD. & ORS. – RESPONDENTSARBITRATION CASE (CIVIL) NO.30 OF 2014Decided On : 16-12-2014

Cases Referred (2)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANJAN GOGOI, J.
PRICOL LIMITED – PETITIONER
VERSUS
JOHNSON CONTROLS ENTERPRISE LTD. & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
ARBITRATION CASE (CIVIL) NO.30 OF 2014
Decided On : 16-12-2014