IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.
Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
IHQ Of Ministry Of Defence (army) - Respondent
Arb.P. 928/2021 & I.A. 12322/2021
Decided On : 21-09-2021
Arbitration - Appointment of Sole Arbitrator - The court allowed the petition and appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties, in accordance with the arbitration clause under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a company engaged in the business of manufacturing mustard oil, participated in a bid to supply edible oil to a Government organization. Due to the Covid pandemic, the petitioner's production stopped, and the respondent terminated the contract, refusing to release the EMD amount.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the arbitration clause in the request for proposal was not disputed, and the respondent's proposal for a panel of three arbitrators was not accepted, citing the exclusivity of the right to appoint a sole arbitrator as per the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. Vs. HSCC (India) Ltd.
Issues: The issues involved the appointment of a sole arbitrator under the arbitration clause, the denial of the force majeure claim, and the refusal to release the EMD amount by the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the exclusivity of the right to appoint a sole arbitrator, as established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the existence of the arbitration clause in the request for proposal.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and Mr. Amar Nath was appointed as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties under the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC).
JUDGMENT
(Oral)
The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.
1. The present petition has been filed by petitioner seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator under the provisions of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for adjudication of disputes with the respondent.
2. Petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, who is engaged in the business of manufacturing of mustard oil. Respondent is a Government organization under the Ministry of Defence, who invited bids for supply of 20500 metric tonne (MT) edible oil vide proposal No. 62801/Q/1/RPF/Edible oil/2020- 21/ APO/PUR-IV, dated 04/02/2020.
The petitioner claims to have participated in the bid and submitted the requisite documents and EMD of Rs. 1,15,13,786/. The bid of petitioner was accepted by the respondent vide its acceptance of tender letter dated 22.05.2020, reference No. 62801/20-21/RMO/APO/AT-5 to AT-13 as per the request for proposal dated 04/02/2020.
3. According to petitioner, due to Covid pandemic, lock down/curfew was imposed all over India from 25.03.2020 and due to lack of manpower and inability to procure oil seeds, the production in petitioner’s factory stopped. After receipt of acceptance of tender vide letter dated 22.05.2020 from the respondent, petitioner vide letter dated 26.05.2020 drew respondent’s attention to force majeure clause of the special condition of request for proposal dated 04/02/2020, which was denied by the respondent vide its communication dated 01.06.2020.
4. It is averred on behalf of petitioner that the requisite criteria laid down in clause VI of part of IV-A of request for proposal dated 04/02/2020, were fulfilled by the petitioner. However, vide letter dated 09.06.2020 and further letter dated 23.07.2020, respondent denied the claim of petitioner and terminated the contract. Further, the respondent did not release the EMD amount of Rs. 1,15,13,7861- to the petitioner, which petitioner is liable to receive under the force majeure clause.
5. The stand of petitioner is that Clause -16 of part-I & Clause -3 of part III of request for proposal dated 04/02/2020 contains the arbitration clause, according to which disputes, if any, shall be resolved through arbitration. It is also contended that the petitioner sent a compulsory 60 days’ notice dated 22.05.2021 to respondent, but the respondent failed to nominate any Arbitrator and so, the said notice be treated as invocation of arbitration clause under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
6. During the course of hearing, Mr. Vikram Jetly, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent has submitted that the respondent has recommended a panel of three Arbitrators and disputes inter se parties can be referred to any of them for consideration.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of material placed on record, this Court finds that existence of arbitration clause under Clause -16 of part-I & Clause -3 of part III of request for proposal dated 04/02/2020 is not disputed by learned counsel for respondent.
However, the proposal for recommendation of a panel of three Arbitrators on behalf of respondent cannot be accepted, as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. Vs. HSCC (India) Ltd. 2019 SCC Online SC 1517 has categorically stated that “in cases where one party has a right to appoint a sole arbitrator, its choice will always have an element of exclusivity in determining or charting the course for dispute resolution. Naturally, the person who has an interest in the outcome or decision of the dispute must not have the power to appoint a sole arbitrator.”
8. In view of aforenoted dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Perkins (Supra), this petition is allowed. Accordingly, Mr. Amar Nath, District & Sessions Judge (retd.), Delhi (Mobile: 9958697030) is appointed sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. The arbitration shall be conducted unde
The main legal point established in the judgment is the exclusivity of the right to appoint a sole arbitrator when one party has such a right, as per the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
A party with the exclusive right to appoint a sole arbitrator cannot have the other party recommend arbitrators, ensuring impartiality in dispute resolution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of an Arbitrator must comply with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the choice of the Arbitrator must not ha....
The court's decision to appoint a new sole Arbitrator underlines the importance of continued arbitration proceedings and addressing counterclaims in compliance with statutory provisions.
: In cases where one party has a right to appoint a sole arbitrator, its choice will always have an element of exclusivity in determining or charting the course for dispute resolution.
Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator by a party with a vested interest is improper and contradicts established legal principles regarding impartiality in arbitration.
The necessity for mutual agreement in appointing a sole arbitrator is critical to uphold fairness in arbitration processes, emphasizing the exclusivity of choice and impartiality in dispute resolutio....
The unilateral appointment of an arbitrator violates the principle of unbiased adjudication, requiring mutual agreement between parties for such appointments.
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the court's authority to appoint a Sole Arbitrator and refer disputes arising from a tender to Arbitration in accordance with the provisions of....
Arbitration - Appointment of Arbitrator - In cases where one party has a right to appoint a sole arbitrator, its choice will always has an element of exclusivity in determining or charting course for....
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.