Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 3083
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. SUNDAR, J.
Suzlon Global Services Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized Signatory, Chitbabu Sundareswaran, Ahmedabad - Appellant
Versus
Sangeeth Textiles (P) Ltd, Rep. by its Managing Director, E.R. Elango, Coimbatore - Respondent
Arb O.P(Com. Div.)Nos. 312 to 314 of 2022 & Arb. Appln. Nos. 46 & 47 of 2022 & O. A. Nos. 50 to 52 of 2022
Decided On : 22-07-2022
For the Petitioner:Abhinav Parthasarathy, Advocate. For the Respondent:R. Roshini, Advocate.
The main legal point established is the court's authority to appoint a sole arbitrator and refer disputes to arbitration for settlement under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Headnote:
Arbitration - Appointment of Sole Arbitrator - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11(6) - The judgment discusses the appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from Operation & Maintenance Agreements. The court appoints a sole arbitrator and refers the disputes to arbitration for settlement.
Fact of the Case:
The court disposed of three 'Arbitration Original Petitions' and other related applications filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The parties involved were 'Suzlon Global Services Ltd.' and 'Sangeeth Textiles (P) Ltd.'
Finding of the Court:
The court found that a sole arbitrator could be appointed based on the consensus of the parties. It also referred the Section 9 applications to arbitration for settlement.
Issues: The issues involved the appointment of a sole arbitrator, the arbitration clauses in the primary contracts, and the disputes arising between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the consensus of the parties to appoint a sole arbitrator and refer the disputes to arbitration for settlement.
Final Decision: The court appointed a sole arbitrator and referred the disputes to arbitration for settlement. It also ordered the refund of Court fee for the Section 9 applications.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Arbitration Original Petition Nos.312 to 314 of 2022 filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the differences and disputes that have arisen between the parties in terms of the Operation & Maintenance Agreements dated 31.03.2016, 15.06.2013 and 01.04.2014 respectively.)
1. This common order will now dispose of the captioned three 'Arbitration Original Petitions' [hereinafter 'Arb OPs' for the sake of convenience and clarity], captioned two 'Arbitration Applications' [hereinafter 'Arb Applns' for the sake of convenience and clarity] and captioned three Original Applications [hereinafter 'OAs' for the sake of convenience and clarity].
2. There are two parties in the captioned matters. Both parties are Companies incorporated in India. One is a public limited company and other is a private limited company but it is not necessary to dilate on this aspect of the matter. Suffice to say that the two parties are 'Suzlon Global Services Ltd.,' [hereinafter 'contractor' for the sake of convenience and clarity] and 'Sangeeth Textiles (P) Ltd.,' [hereinafter 'employer' for the sake of convenience and clarity].
3. Mr.Abhinav Parthasarathy, learned counsel on record for contractor and Ms.R.Roshini, learned counsel on record for employer are before this Court.
4. Captioned three Arb OPs have been presented in this Court by the contractor under Section 11 of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act No.26 of 1996)' [hereinafter referred to as 'A and C Act' for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity] with prayers for appointment of Arbitrator. Captioned OAs namely, O.A.Nos.50 to 52 of 2022 have also been taken out by contractor albeit under Section 9 of A and C Act with various interim prayers. However, Arb Applns namely, Arb Appln Nos.46 and 47 have been taken out by employer under Section 9 of A and C Act with different interim prayers.
5. Both the aforementioned learned counsel, on instructions, submit that a sole Arbitrator (Arbitrator of this Court's choice) can be appointed. To be noted, consensus begins and ends here. There is no other consent or concession by either side and all the questions are left open.
6. Aforementioned limited consent/consensus has now made the task of disposal of the captioned matters fairly simple.
7. Suffice to say that there are three agreements between employer and contractor being agreements dated 31.03.2016, 15.06.2013 and 01.04.2014. [hereinafter collectively 'primary contracts' in plural and 'I primary contract', 'II primary contract' and 'III primary contract' respectively wherever, there is a need to refer to contract individually i.e., independent of one another].
8. The arbitration clause in I primary contract is clause 14 captioned 'DISPUTE RESOLUTION'. This clause has to be read with clause 15 captioned 'Jurisdiction and Governing Law'. A scanned reproduction of these clauses 14 and 15 in I primary contract is as follows:
“IMAGE”
9. The arbitration clauses in II and III primary contracts is also clause 14 captioned 'Dispute Resolution' but there is a difference regarding seat / venue. The arbitration clause in II and III primary contract have to be read along with clause 15 thereat captioned 'Jurisdiction and Governing Law'. A scanned reproduction of these clauses 14 and 15 in II and III primary contract are as follows:
“IMAGE”
10. Aforementioned clauses serve as arbitration agreements i.e., 'Three Arbitration Agreements' between employer and contractor being arbitration agreements within the meaning of Section 2(1)(b) read with Section 7 of A and C Act is the common say of both learned counsel. As regards arbitration agreement qua I primacy contract, both learned counsel, on instructions, submit that the parties have agreed that Seat / Venue shall be Chennai and not Pune. In this regard, a letter dated 13.01.2022 qua I primary contract from employer forming part of typed set of papers was referred to. A scann
