SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI., PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.B. PARDIWALA, JJ.
M/s Glock Asia-Pacific Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
Arbitration Petition No. 51 of 2022
Decided On : 19-05-2023
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 11(6) and 12(5) – Constitution of India – Article 229 – Appointment of Arbitrator – Contract entered into in name of President of India, cannot and will not create immunity against application of any statutory prescription imposing conditions on parties to agreement when Government chooses to enter into contract – As grounds of challenge to appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 12(5) of Act operate notwithstanding any prior agreement to the contrary, Court cannot give effect to appointment of an officer of Ministry of Law and Justice as an Arbitrator – Former Judge of Supreme Court appointed as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon disputes arising under and in connection with Conditions of Tender entered into between parties, subject to mandatory disclosures under amended Section 12 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. (Paras 13, 19 and 22)
Facts of the case:
This is an application under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator.
Findings of Court:
Law Commission had proposed the incorporation of the Schedule which was drawn from the red and orange list of IBA guidelines on conflict of interest in international arbitration with the observation that the same would be treated as the guide to determine whether circumstances exist which give rise to such justifiable doubts. Such persons do not get covered by red or orange list of IBA guidelines either.
Result : Arbitration Application allowed.
JUDGMENT :
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.
1. This is an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961[Hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’] for the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator by Glock Asia-Pacific Ltd.2[Hereinafter referred as ‘applicant’]
2. Facts: The Ministry of Home Affairs (Procurement Division)3[Hereinafter referred as ‘respondent’.] floated a single party tender on 02.02.2011 for supply of 31,756 Glock Pistols. The bid was confirmed in favour of the applicant and a Tender of Acceptance was issued by the respondent on 31.03.2011. Clause 64[“6. Performance Security Deposit- You will submit performance bond of 10% of value of contract i.e. US$ 13,29,093/- (US dollars thirteen lakh twenty nine thousand and ninety three only) in the shape of bank guarantee in the required Performa in favour of Joint Secretary (Police Modernisation), Ministry of Home affairs, Jaisalmer House, New Delhi within 30 days here of i.e. by 30.04.2011. The Performance guarantee will remain valid till two months after the expiry of warranty period, which will be 18 months from the date of acceptance stores at the consignee location. If necessary, firm on their own will have to direct their bankers to extend the performance bond to remain valid till two months after warranty period. Where the performance bank guarantee is obtained from a foreign bank, it shall be got confirmed by a scheduled Indian Bank and will be governed by Indian Laws and be subject to the jurisdiction of Courts of the place of issue of acceptance of Tender (A/T), i.e Delhi.”] of the Tender of Acceptance, required the Petitioner to submit a performance bond of 10% of the value of the contract, being USD 13,29,093/-. Applicant furnished the performance bank guarantee5[Hereinafter referred as ‘PBG’.] on 24.08.2011 and proceeded to perform its contractual obligations and in fact, by 06.08.2012 delivered the entire supply under the contract. The respondent accepted the consignment and paid the entire consideration by 11.11.2012.
3. The PBG which was issued on 24.08.2011 was extended from time to time during the subsistence of the contract and also thereafter till 2021, i.e., for nine years after the completion of the delivery and final payment under the contract. On 31.05.2021, the applicant informed the respondent that the PBG will not be extended any further. The respondent immediately invoked the PBG for INR 9,64,42,738/-, citing Clauses 11 and 18(c) of Schedule II of the Acceptance of Tender. These clauses, which provide for Guarantee and Warranty, are as follows:
“Clause 11. Guarantee/Warranty: 40,000 rounds for pistol and ors. 18 months from the date of acceptance of EQPT/ Stores in good condition at consignee location in India.
Clause 18(c) Warranty: the supplier furnishes his warranty that the goods supplied under the contract on you, on use of the incorporate all recent improvement in design and material. The supplier shall for the warranty the goods supplied under this contract shall have no defect arising from design, material of workmanship or from any act or commission or the supplier normal use of the supplied goods in the condition obtained in the country of final destination. Warranty shall remain valid up to 40,000 rounds of pistol and 18 months from other items from the date of acceptance of stores. The consignee shall promptly notify the supplier in writing of any claim arising under this warranty. Upon receipt of such notice the supplier having been notified failed to remedy the defects within the warranty period prescribed in this clause, the purchaser may proceed to take such a medial action as may be necessary at the suppliers risk and expense and without prejudice to any other rights which the purchaser may have under the contract. The manufacturer will be required by the indenter on actual price basis. Warranty support will include installation and commissioning of equipment free of charge. Operational training of the users pers
K.P.Chowdhry v. State of Madhya Pradesh. And Others (1966) 3 SCR 919 [Para 12] – Referred.
Mulamchand v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1968) 3 SCR 214 [Para 12] – Referred.
Secretary to Government Transport Department, Madras v. Munusamy Mudaliar
State of Assam and ors. v. Shri Kanak Chandra Dutta
International Authority of India v. K.D.Bali and Anr, 1988 (2) SCC 360; S.Rajan v. State of Kerala
TRF Ltd. v. Energo Engg. Projects Ltd.
Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. v. Raja Transport (P) Ltd.
Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals v. M/s. Indo-Swiss Synthetics Germ Manufacturing Co.Ltd.
Denel Propreitory Ltd. v. Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence
Voestalpine Schienen GmbH v. DMRC
Bipromasz Bipron Trading SA v. Bharat Electronics Ltd.
Bhikraj Jaipuria v. Union of India (1962) 2 SCR 880 [Para 12] – Referred.
Ace Pipeline Contract Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Puri v. Gangaram Chhapolia
Contract entered into in name of President of India, cannot and will not create immunity against application of any statutory prescription imposing conditions on parties to agreement when Government ....
Disqualified arbitrators cannot appoint successors; unilateral requests do not waive statutory disqualifications under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
The appointment of an arbitrator must comply with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, particularly Section 12(5), which disqualifies certain individuals from serving as arbitrators.
An employee of the respondent or even a retired employee would be ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator. The panel of arbitrators should be broad-based and should include persons with diverse b....
The court reinforced that impartiality and independence of arbitrators is essential, disqualifying those with vested interests under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court affirmed that the claimant must secure the necessary Airport Entry Permits and upheld the arbitration award, ruling no breach by the respondent; consent regarding the arbitrator's appointme....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.