Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. SUNDAR, J.
M/s. Johnson Lifts Private Limited, Rep. by its Authorised Signatory Rose Blessed King, Chennai - Appellant
Versus
M/s. Barnala Builders and Property Consultant, Punjab - Respondent
Arb. O.P (Com.Div) No. 293 of 2022
Decided On : 08-08-2022
Arbitration - Appointment of Sole Arbitrator - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act No.26 of 1996) - Section 11(6)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from a contract. The disputes pertained to non-payment for lifts supplied/installed under the contract.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the arbitration clause in the contract constituted an arbitration agreement under Section 2(1)(b) read with Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. As the respondent did not appear, the court relied on Section 11(6A) to confine the examination to the existence of an arbitration agreement.
Issues: The issues involved the appointment of a sole arbitrator and the application of Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the legislative intent to minimize court intervention in appointing arbitrators, as reflected in Section 11(6A) and the need for expeditious disposal of Section 11 applications, as emphasized by the Supreme Court in Shree Vishnu Constructions case law.
Final Decision: The court appointed Ms. V. Usha Rani as the sole arbitrator and directed her to adjudicate the disputes at the Madras High Court Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, in accordance with the Madras High Court Arbitration Proceedings Rules, 2017.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Petitioner filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes that have arisen between the petitioner and the respondent under the said contract.)
1. This order will now dispose of captioned matter.
2. This order has to be read in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made in the previous listings on 07.07.2022 and 04.08.2022, which read as follows:
'Proceedings dated 07.07.2022
Captioned 'Arbitration Original Petition' [hereinafter 'Arb OP' for the sake of convenience and clarity] has been presented in this Court on 29.04.2022 under Section 11 of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act No.26 of 1996)' [hereinafter 'A and C Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity] with a prayer for appointment of an Arbitrator.
2. Mr.A.R.Karunakaran, learned counsel for sole petitioner is before this Court.
3. It is submitted that the captioned Arb OP is predicated on an arbitration clause in what is styled as 'Contract / Work Order dated 18.07.2019' [hereinafter 'primary contract' for the sake of convenience and clarity].
4. The arbitration clause in primary contract reads as follows:
'Arbitration:
If any dispute, controversy or claim between the parties arises out of or in connection with this contract, including its existence, breach, termination or validity thereof, the parties shall use all reasonable endeavours to negotiate with a view to resolve the dispute amicably. If the dispute has not been settled pursuant to the said negotiations and the parties are unable to resolve the dispute amicably, then the dispute shall be finally resolved by Arbitration as per the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation, 1996 and the Rules framed therewith by a Sole Arbitrator appointed by Johnson Lifts from the panel of Arbitrators maintained by Johnson Lifts. Any such arbitration award passed by the said Arbitrator shall be final and binding on both parties. The seat of the arbitration shall be at Chennai and the language of the Arbitration proceedings shall be English.'
5. Adverting to the aforementioned clause in primary contract, it is submitted that the aforementioned clause serves as Arbitration Agreement between the petitioner and respondent i.e., 'Arbitration Agreement' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(b) read with Section 7 of A and C Act. It is also pointed out that Chennai is the Venue.
6. Be that as it may, it is submitted that arbitrable disputes erupted between the petitioner and respondent as according to the petitioner, the respondent has not made payment in full for lifts that have been supplied/installed qua primary contract. This Court expresses no opinion on the lis as this is a Section 11 legal drill.
7. Owing to the aforesaid arbitrable dispute, a trigger notice being trigger notice dated 03.09.2021 was issued by the petitioner, in and by the trigger notice a sole Arbitrator was proposed. This trigger notice was served on the respondent on 08.09.2021 but there is no reply from the respondent is learned counsel's say.
8. To be noted, the Arbitrator suggested by the petitioner in the trigger notice had subsequently expressed reservation as the respondent had not replied to the trigger notice / consented for the name suggested by the petitioner. This has necessitated the presentation of the captioned Arb OP in this Court is learned counsel's further say.
9. Prima facie case for issue of notice made out.
10. Issue notice to respondent returnable in four weeks i.e., returnable by 04.08.2022. Private notice permitted.
11. List on 04.08.2022'
Proceedings dated 04.08.2022
Mr.Benjamin E. Moses, learned counsel for sole petitioner is before this Court. Learned counsel adverting to earlier proceedings dated 07.07.2022 submits that the lone respondent has since been duly served. Learned counsel also submits that 'Affidavit of Service' [AOS] has been filed vide Diary
The main legal point established is the court's adherence to the narrow examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement under Section 11(6A) and the emphasis on expeditious disposal of Secti....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the narrow scope of examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and th....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the narrow scope of examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement under Section 11(6) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to appoint a sole arbitrator based on the existence of an arbitration agreement, in accordance with the statutory provisions ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the statutory perimeter under Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, confines the examination of the existence of an ar....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the conclusive decision on the limitation plea and the importance of expeditious disposal of arbitration matters.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of a legal drill under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the expeditious disposal of petitions under ....
The Court's decision was influenced by the narrow interpretation of Section 11(6A) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as discussed in the Mayavati Trading case law and Duro Felguera princ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the narrow interpretation of Section 11(6) and the legislative policy to minimize court intervention in appointing arbitrators.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
