IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.SUNDAR, J.
Westart Communications India Private Limited, represented by its Authorised Signatory, Chennai - Appellant
Versus
The Greater Chennai Corporation, represented by its Commissioner, Chennai & Others - Respondent
Arb. O.P (Com. Div) No. 326 of 2022
Decided On : 22-07-2022
Arbitration - Appointment of Arbitrator - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 11(6)(a) - Concession Agreement dated 03.01.2020 - Articles 16.2.1 and 16.2.2 - Schedule 3 - Article 28.5 - Mayavati Trading case law - Duro Felguera, S.A. case law
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner filed under Section 11(6)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent Corporation in terms of the Concession Agreement dated 03.01.2020. The disputes included suspension of Demurrage clauses, non-supply of Construction and Demolition waste, issuance of COD Certificate, settlement of monthly invoices, and payment of interest.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that there was proper invocation of the arbitration clause by the petitioner, and as the respondents did not dispute the existence of the arbitration agreement, it deemed it appropriate to appoint a sole Arbitrator. The Court referred to the Mayavati Trading case law and Duro Felguera, S.A. case law to support its decision.
Issues: The issues included the existence of an arbitration agreement, proper invocation of the arbitration clause, and the appointment of a sole Arbitrator.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the provisions of Section 11(6)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the interpretations provided in the Mayavati Trading case law and Duro Felguera, S.A. case law to decide on the appointment of the Arbitrator.
Final Decision: The Court appointed Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.Parthiban (Retd.,) as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes and render an award in accordance with the Madras High Court Arbitration Proceedings Rules 2017.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Petitioner filed under Section 11(6)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent Corporation in terms of the Concession Agreement dated 03.01.2020 with reference to (1) the proposal of the Greater Chennai Corporation for suspension of Demurrage clauses incorporated in Articles 16.2.1 and 16.2.2 of the Concession Agreement dated 03.01.2020; (2) non-supply of Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste from Zones 1, 2, 3 and 7 to the Processing Facility at Kodungaiyur established and operated by the petitioner; (3) supply of Minimum Guaranteed C&D waste to the Processing Facility at Kodungaiyur established and operated by the petitioner as contemplated in Schedule 3 of the Concession Agreement dated 03.01.2020; (4) issuance of COD (Commercial Operations Date) Certificate; (5) to settle the monthly invoices raised by the Petitioner for the months from December 2021 onwards; (6) payment of interest in terms of Article 28.5 of the Concession Agreement for the Delayed Payment of the Invoices raised by the petitioner; and (7) any other disputes in the contract between the petitioner and the Greater Chennai Corporation arising out of the Concession Agreement No.A7/3155/2019 dated 03.01.2020 and to pay costs.)
1. This order will now dispose of captioned 'Arbitration Original Petition' ['Arb.OP' for the sake of brevity].
2. This order has to be read in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made by this Court in the previous listing on 20.07.2022, which reads as follows:
'Captioned 'Arbitration Original Petition' [hereinafter 'Arb OP' for the sake of convenience and clarity] has been presented in this Court on 04.07.2022 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 a prayer for appointment of an Arbitrator qua 'Concession Agreement dated 03.01.2020' [hereinafter 'primary contract' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. To be noted, this concession agreement is inter alia regarding establishment of processing facility qua construction and demolition waste generated from Zones 1 to 8 at Kodungaiyur Dump site of Chennai Corporation.
2. Mr.K.Doraisami, learned Senior counsel instructed by counsel on record for the petitioner submits that clause 27.3 of primary contract is the arbitration clause and therefore, the same serves as arbitration agreement between the parties i.e., 'Arbitration Agreement' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(b) read with Section 7 of A and C Act.
3. When the primary contract was operated, arbitrable disputes arose between the parties inter alia touching upon (a) Suspension of Demurrage clause (b) Non-supply of construction and demolition waste (c) Non-issuance of commercial operation dates (d) pending invoices raised by the petitioner. It is not necessary to give an exhaustive list of arbitrable disputes as this is a Section 11 legal drill that too in the Admission Board. Suffice to say that learned Senior counsel drew the attention of this Court to a notice dated 11.05.2022 and submitted that this is the notice invoking arbitration agreement between the parties owing to eruption of inter alia the aforementioned arbitrable disputes when the primary contract was worked / operated as already alluded to supra. This trigger notice i.e., notice invoking arbitration clause has been duly received by the respondent Corporation on 12.05.2022 is learned Senior counsel's further say, on instructions.
4. There has been no reply to the aforementioned trigger notice necessitating the presentation of the captioned Arb OP in this Court on 04.07.2022 is the further submission of the learned Senior counsel.
5. Prima facie case for issue of notice has been made out.
6. Issue notice.
7. Ms.M.Dhanisha, learned counsel representing Ms.Karthikaa Ashok
The main legal point established in the judgment is the proper invocation of the arbitration clause and the appointment of a sole Arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and C....
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 limited scope of a legal drill under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the expeditious disposal of petitions under ....
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 the conclusive decision on the limitation plea and the importance of expeditious disposal of arbitration matters.
The Court's decision was guided by the narrow interpretation of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the legislative policy to minimize court intervention in appointing ar....
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....
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.