SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Del) 904

HIGH COURT OF DELHI
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
Institute of Geoinformatics (P) Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Others – Respondent
Arb. Pet. No. 175 of 2012
Decided on : 19-05-2015

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Vivek Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Sujoy Kumar, Nishant Menon, Reeta Mishra, Abhishek Birthray, Advocates.

The main legal point established is that claims must be notified within the specified time and to the designated authorities as per the contract for them to be arbitrable. The decision of the designated authority on the arbitrability of claims is final as per the contract.

Headnote:

Arbitration - Appointment of Arbitrator - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 11(6) - 9.0.0.0, 6.7.1.0, 6.7.2.0, 9.0.2.0, 6.6.3.0, 9.1.1.0, 9.0.1.1, 9.0.3.0, 9.0.4.0 - The court discussed the arbitration clause, the requirement of notifying claims, and the exclusion of certain matters from arbitration. The court emphasized the need for claims to be notified within the specified time and to the designated authorities as per the contract.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner entered into a contract with the respondent-corporation for a pipeline project. The respondent terminated the contract, and the petitioner raised claims for payment and invoked the arbitration clause. The General Manager held that only one claim was arbitrable, and the remaining claims were not notified and therefore not arbitrable.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the General Manager's decision to not notify certain claims was in accordance with the contract's arbitration clause. The court emphasized the importance of complying with the notification requirements as specified in the contract.

Issues: The issues revolved around the arbitrability of the petitioner's claims, the requirement of notifying claims as per the contract, and the authority of the General Manager to decide on the arbitrability of claims.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that claims must be notified within the specified time and to the designated authorities as per the contract. Only notified claims included in the final bill can be referred to arbitration. The decision of the General Manager on the arbitrability of claims is final as per the contract.

Final Decision: The court disposed of the petition, directing the respondents to forward a panel of three names to the petitioner for the selection of an Arbitrator to arbitrate the notified claim and any interest thereon, along with any counter claims of the respondents.

Judgment :

1. The present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’, in short) has been filed for appointment of an Arbitrator.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the pipeline division of the respondent-corporation desired to execute the work of detailed engineering survey, soil survey and providing services for establishing ROU IN ROW of Paradip, Haldia, Durgapur, LPG Pipeline Project, entered into a contract with the petitioner on July 14, 2010. The contract has an arbitration clause, which is reproduced as under:

“9.0.0.0 ARBITRATION

9.0.1.0 Subject to the provisions of Clauses 6.7.1.0, 6.7.2.0 and 9.0.2.0 hereof, any dispute arising out of a Notified Claim of the CONTRACTOR included in the Final Bill of the CONTRACTOR in accordance with the provisions of the Clause 6.6.3.0 hereof, if the CONTRACTOR has not opted for the Alternative Disputes Resolution Machinery referred to in Clause 9.1.1.0 hereof, and any dispute arising out of any Claim(s) of the OWNER against the CONTRACTOR shall be referred to the arbitration of a Sole Arbitrator selected in accordance with the provisions of Clause 9.0.1.1 hereof. It is specifically agreed that the OWNER may prefer its claim (s) against the CONTRACTOR as counter-claim(s) if a Notified Claim of the CONTRACTOR has been referred to arbitration. The CONTRACTOR shall not, however, be entitled to raise as s set off defence or counterclaim any claim which is not a notified claim included in the CONTRACTOR’S Final Bill in accordance with the provisions of clause 6.6.3.0 hereof.

9.0.1.1 The Sole Arbitrator referred to in Clause 9.0.1.0 hereof shall be selected by the CONTRACTOR out of a panel of 3 (three) persons nominated by the OWNER for the purpose of such selection, and should the CONTRACTOR fail to select an arbitrator within 30 days of the panel of names of such nominees being furnished by the OWNER for the purpose, the Sole Arbitrator shall be selected by the OWNER out of the said panel.

9.0.2.0 Any dispute(s) or difference(s) with respect to or concerning or relating to any of the following matters are hereby specifically excluded from the scope, purview and ambit of this Arbitration Agreement with the intention that any dispute or difference with respect to any of the said following matters and/or relating to the Arbitrator’s or Arbitral Tribunal’s jurisdiction with respect thereto shall not and cannot form the subject matter of any reference or submission to arbitration, and the Arbitrator or the Arbitral Tribunal shall have no jurisdiction to entertain the same or to render any decision with respect thereto, and such matter shall be decided by the General Manager prior to the Arbitrator proceeding with or proceeding further with the reference. The said excluded matters are:

(i) with respect to or concerning the scope of existence or otherwise of the Arbitration Agreement;

(ii) Whether or not a claim sought to be referred to arbitration by the CONTRACTOR is a notified claim;

(iii) Whether or not a notified claim is included in the CONTRACTOR’s final bill in accordance with the provisions of clause 6.6.3.0 thereof;

(iv) Whether or not the CONTRACTOR has opted for the Alternative Dispute Resolution Machinery with respect to any Notified Claim included in the CONTRACTOR’S Final Bill.

9.0.3.0 The provisions of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and any re enactment (s) and/or modification(s) thereof and of the Rules framed there under shall apply to arbitration proceedings pursuant hereto subject to the following conditions:

(a) The Arbitrator shall give his Award separately in respect of each claim and counter claim and

(b) The Arbitrator shall not be entitled to review any decision, opinion or determination (howsoever expressed), which is stated to be final and/or binding on the CONTRACTOR in terms of the Contract Documents.

9.0.4.0 The venue of the arbitration shall be New Delhi, provided that the Arbitrator may with the consent of the OWN





















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top