IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sachin Datta, J.
Steelman Telecom Limited – Appellant
Versus
Power Grid Corporation of India Limited – Respondent
Arb.P. 1064 of 2022
Decided On : 14-08-2023
Arbitration - Appointment of Sole Arbitrator - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11 - Clause 14 of the Purchase Order - Appointment procedure for arbitrator - Counterbalancing of power - Broadbased panel
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought the appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate the disputes arising from a purchase order. The disputes arose from the respondent's alleged breach of obligations under the tender, letter of intent, and contract, including failure to release payments, wrongful termination, and arbitrary appropriation of funds. The petitioner issued a demand notice, followed by a notice invoking arbitration, which was refuted by the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the appointment procedure for the arbitrator and considered the arguments of both parties. It found that the appointment procedure, which allowed one party to draw up a panel of arbitrators and the other party to choose from that panel, did not achieve genuine counterbalancing as required by legal principles. The court concluded that the equilibrium was disturbed by the provision for 'confirmation' of the chosen arbitrator by the party drawing up the panel, tipping the scales in favor of the respondent. As a result, the court appointed an independent Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the appointment procedure for the arbitrator, the achievement of genuine counterbalancing of power, and the requirement for a broadbased panel of arbitrators.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appointment procedure, which allowed one party to draw up a panel of arbitrators and the other party to choose from that panel, did not achieve genuine counterbalancing as required by legal principles. The court emphasized the need for a truly broadbased panel and the achievement of genuine counterbalancing of power in the appointment procedure.
Final Decision: The court appointed an independent Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties and allowed the respondent to raise preliminary objections as regards arbitrability/maintainability of the claims. The court also directed the arbitrator to proceed with the arbitration proceedings, subject to furnishing requisite disclosures, and to be entitled to fee in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT
Sachin Datta, J.
1. The present petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "A&C Act") seeks appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
2. The disputes between the parties have arisen with respect to the work executed by the petitioner in furtherance of tender bearing No. ERTCC/C&MI17-18/I-75/T-139/AMC_LMC/Pkg-C dated 23.02.2018 floated by the respondent and awarded to the petitioner for the "AMC of Bhubaneshwar and Cuttack Intracity and Talcher-Bhubaneswar Intercity OFC Network and LMC in various cities of Odisha for a period of three years".
3. Initially, a purchase order dated 12.10.2018 was issued by the respondent upon the petitioner. Clause 14 of the aforesaid purchase order incorporates the arbitration agreement, which is in the following terms:
"14.0 ARBITRATION
All disputes or differences in respect of which the decision, if any, of the Project Manager and/or the Head of the Implementing Authority has not become final or binding as aforesaid shall be settled by arbitration in the manner provided herein below:
The arbitration shall be conducted by a sole arbitrator in case the amount of claim is less than Rs. 25 crore and by three member arbitral tribunal in case the amount of claim is greater than Rs. 25 Crore.
Sole Arbitration
The sole Arbitrator shall be chosen from a panel of empanelled Arbitrators maintained by POWERGRID. The same shall comprise of retired Judges and retired Senior executives of PSUs other than POWERGRID. Further, the choice of sole Arbitrator shall be governed by the amount of claim in the following manner:
| Sl. No. | Claim Amount | Work Experience/Qualifications |
| 1. | Sole Arbitrator-Retired Senior Executives of PSUs other than POWERGRID/Retired Distt Judges/High Court Judges. | |
| 2. | Rs. 10 Crore - Rs. 25 Crore | Sole Arbitrator - Retired High Court/Supreme Court Judges |
(a) In case of invocation of arbitration by POWERGRID, POWERGRID shall, within 30 days, send a list of names of 3 arbitrators from its list/database of Arbitrators and the contractor shall within the period of further 30 days select anyone person to act as "Sole Arbitrator", which will be confirmed by POWERGRID and matter will be referred to such appointed Arbitrator for further arbitration proceedings.
(b) In case of invocation of arbitration by the Contractor, the Contractor shall request POWERGRID for its database of Arbitrators/chose from the list of Arbitrators available on POWERGRID's website, and the contractor shall, within 30 days, select anyone Arbitrator from the above to act as "Sole Arbitrator", which will be confirmed by POWERGRID within 30 days and matter will be referred to such appointed Arbitrator for further arbitration proceedings.
If the parties fail to appoint sole arbitrator within sixty (60) days after receipt of a notice from the other party invoking Arbitration, the appointment of sole arbitrator shall be done by Courts as per the provisions of Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any statutory modification thereof.
Three member arbitral tribunal
The arbitration shall be conducted by three arbitrators, who are retired High Court/Supreme Court Judges, one each to be nominated by the Contractor and the Employer and the third to be appointed by both the arbitrators in accordance with the Indian Arbitration & Conciliation Act. If either of the parties fails to appoint its arbitrator within sixty (60) days after receipt of a notice from the other party invoking the Arbitration clause, the arbitrator appointed by the party invoking the arbitration clause shall become the sole arbitrator to conduct the arbitration. In case of failure of the two arbitrators appointed by the parties to reach upon a consensus regarding appointment of presiding Arbitrator within a period of 30 days from the appointment of the arbitrator appointed subsequently, the presiding arbitrator shall be appointed by Courts as per the provisions of Arbitration
Bharat Broadband Network Limited Vs. United Telecoms Limited
TRF Limited Vs. Energo Engineering Projects Limited
Voestalpine Schienen GMBH Vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a truly broadbased panel of arbitrators and the achievement of genuine counterbalancing of power in the appointment procedure f....
The appointment procedure prescribed in clause 3.37 of the RFP was found to be restrictive and not broad-based, impinging upon the validity of the appointment procedure. The 'counter balancing' as co....
The main legal point established is that the appointment procedure for arbitrators must be broad-based and meet the requirement of counterbalancing as per the arbitration agreement.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a broad-based panel of arbitrators and the need for an independent and impartial arbitral tribunal, as mandated by previous jud....
Disqualified arbitrators cannot appoint successors; unilateral requests do not waive statutory disqualifications under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the procedure for appointment of Arbitral Tribunal as prescribed in the General Conditions of Contract was void and contrary to the scheme of ....
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 determined an arbitrator's jurisdiction depends on claims being notified by the General Manager; failure to do so limits arbitration eligibility.
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.