IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C.Hari Shankar, J.
Hll Lifecare Limited (hll) & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Employees State Insurance Corporation (esic) & Ors. - Respondents
O.M.P. (T) (Comm.) 115/2021 & I.A. 14768/2021, I.A. 3681/2022 and O.M.P. (T) (Comm.) 30/2022 & I.A. 3465/2022, I.A. 3466/2022
Decided On : 07-03-2022
Section 12(5) - Arbitration - 1996 Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 12(5) of the 1996 Act was the key legal provision discussed by the court. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Section 12(5) and its application in the case. The court held that the appointment of the arbitrator was ab initio void, being contrary to Section 12(5) of the 1996 Act read with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bharat Broadband (supra).
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a petition seeking termination of the mandate of an arbitrator appointed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The disputes arose out of a Turnkey Agreement Contract between ESIC and HLL. ESIC appointed Mr. Jagmohan Lal as the arbitrator, and HLL consented to the appointment during the proceedings. Fresh disputes arose, and ESIC appointed a retired Judge as the arbitrator, leading to the filing of the petition seeking termination of the mandate of the arbitrator.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appointment of the arbitrator was ab initio void, being contrary to Section 12(5) of the 1996 Act. The court terminated the mandate of the arbitrator and appointed a retired Chief Justice of the Court to arbitrate on the disputes.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the arbitrator's appointment, the unilateral appointment of a retired Judge as the arbitrator, and the termination of the mandate of the arbitrator.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation and application of Section 12(5) of the 1996 Act, as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bharat Broadband (supra). The court held that the appointment of the arbitrator was ab initio void, leading to the termination of the mandate.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, terminated the mandate of the arbitrator, and appointed a retired Chief Justice of the Court to arbitrate on the disputes. The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the claims of either party against each other.
JUDGMENT
OMP (T) (Comm) 30/2022, IA 3465/2022 (Section 151 CPC for stay) and IA 3466/2022 (Section 151 CPC for exemption)
1. This petition, under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the 1996 Act"), seeks termination of the mandate of Mr. Jagmhan Lal, the arbitrator presently in seisin of the arbitral disputes between the Employee State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) and HLL Lifecare Limited (HLL), consequent to the ESIC having appointed him as a sole arbitrator by letter dated 3rd August, 2018.
2. The disputes between the parties arose out of a Turnkey Agreement Contract dated 21st January, 2010, between ESIC and HLL. Clause 20.6 of the agreement envisaged resolution of the disputes between the parties by arbitration and read thus:
"20.6 In case of any disputes or differences in connection with or arising out of this agreement the same shall be referred to the Sole Arbitrator to be appointed by the Director General, ESIC, New Delhi. The award of the sole Arbitrator shall be final and binding on both the parties."
3. Disputes having arisen between the parties, HLL wrote to ESIC on 29th May, 2018, invoking Clause 20.6 read with Clause 20.8 of the agreement and requesting ESIC to appoint a sole arbitrator, as per the said clause. ESIC proceeded to appoint Mr. Jagmohan Lal, former Additional Director General, CPWD, as the arbitrator, and addressed a communication to Mr. Jagmohan Lal on 3rd August, 2018, with a copy marked to HLL, which read thus:
"To,
Shri Jagmohan Lal,
Former Addl. Director General CPWD,
121, Ankur, apartment, 7,I.P. Extension,
New Delhi-110092
Mob. 09891426576
Subj:- In the matter off Arbitration between Employees' State Insurance Corporation and M/s HLL Lifecare Limited for the project Construction of ESIC Medical College & Hospital at Paripally Village, Kollam District, Kerala
Sir,
WHEREAS the above mentioned Contract Agreement was entered between the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, CIG Road, New Delhi-110002 and M/s HLL Lifecare Limited to execute the said work on turnkey basis.
AND WHEREAS the said contract includes an arbitration agreement vide Clause No. 20.6 of Particular Condition of Contract which, interalia, provide that all disputes between the parties of the contract shall, after written noticed by either party to the contract to the other of them, be referred to the Sole Arbitrator to be appointed by the Director General, Employees' State Insurance Corporation.
AND WHEREAS certain disputes had arisen between the above noted parties.
NOW THEREFORE, by virtue of the aforesaid, I hereby inform your appointment as Sole Arbitrator and request you to enter on the reference and publish your findings and award in respect of disputes so far as these are referable to arbitration in accordance with this said agreement, a copy of which is enclosed.
The Arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the provision of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or any statutory amendment thereof and such Arbitral proceedings shall be held at New Delhi. Please acknowledge.
Yours faithfully,
Sd.
(SUDIP DUTTA)
CHIEF ENGINEER
Copy to:
1) PPS to D.G., ESIC for kind information please.
2) PPS to I.C. (PMD) for kind information please.
3) M/s HLL Lifecare Limited, HLL Bhawan, Golden Jubilee Block, Poojappura P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695012 for information and necessary action please.
4) Sh. D.N. Arya, Superintending Engineer-IV, ESIC Hqrs. Office for information please.
Sd.
CHIEF ENGINEER"
4. Having thus been appointed as an arbitrator, Mr. Jagmohan Lal entered on reference.
5. The record of the proceedings held by the learned arbitrator on 24th September, 2018, read thus:
"Minutes of the 1st Preliminary Hearing held on 24th September, 2018 at New Delhi
*****
1. Both Parties agree that 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996' duly amended by 'The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015', will apply in the instant case.
2. A copy of the declaration under Section 12 of the above mentioned
Associated Hotels of India Ltd. vs. S.B. Sardar Ranjit Singh
Associated Hotels of India Ltd. vs. S.B. Sardar Ranjit Singh
Bharat Broadband Network Ltd. vs. United Telecoms Ltd
Dawsons Bank Ltd. vs. Nippon Menkwa Kabushiki Kaisha
Inderpreet Singh Kahlon vs. State of Punjab
Krishna Bahadur vs. Purna Theatre
Mademsetty Satyanarayana vs. G. Yelloji Rao
Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills vs. State of U.P. (1979) 2 SCC 409
The main legal point established in the judgment is the ab initio void nature of the arbitrator's appointment, as it was contrary to Section 12(5) of the 1996 Act. The court's decision was based on t....
The necessity for an express written waiver to validate an arbitrator's appointment under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of an express agreement in writing to waive the applicability of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
An arbitrator's appointment violating Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act without an express written waiver is invalid, rendering any adjudicated award void.
A unilateral appointment of an arbitrator from an ineligible party is void ab initio without an express written waiver of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which cannot be implie....
The appointment of an arbitrator must comply with Section 12(5) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, ensuring independence and impartiality, regardless of when the arbitration proceedings were init....
Arbitral Tribunal consisting of officers of State have become ineligible to become Arbitrators and to continue as Arbitrators.
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.
Parties consenting to arbitration and participating without objection cannot later challenge the arbitral award based on alleged unilateral appointment of the arbitrator.
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.