SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Mad) 197

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C. SARAVANAN, J.
Container Corporation of India Limited (CONCOR), Represented by its Deputy General Manager, Chennai - Appellant
Versus
The Secretary to Government, Industries Department/Chairman – SIPCOT, Chennai & Anr. - Respondents
Arb. O.P. (Com.Div.) No. 522 of 2023 & Arb. Appln. No. 557 of 2023
Decided On : 03-01-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:A.R.L. Sundaresan, Additional Solicitor General. For the Respondents:R1, P. Harish Government Advocate For the Respondents:R2 & R3, M.P. Rajavelayutham, Advocate.

The court has the authority to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the appointed arbitrator must adhere to the provisions of the Act in resolving the dispute.

Headnote:

Arbitration - Appointment of Arbitrator - The court appointed a retired judge as an arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate upon disputes arising from a Lease Deed.

Finding of the Court:

The court appointed a retired judge as an arbitrator and directed the parties to bear their own costs. It also allowed the parties to seek other reliefs under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the appointed arbitrator.

Issues: Appointment of Arbitrator, Costs, Seeking Reliefs under Section 17

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the consent of the parties for the appointment of an arbitrator, the suggestion of names by the petitioner's counsel, and the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Final Decision: The Original Petition was allowed, and the court appointed a retired judge as an arbitrator, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The parties were also allowed to seek other reliefs under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the appointed arbitrator.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Original Petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes that have arisen between the petitioner and the respondents in respect of the Lease Deed dated 25.03.2011 between the petitioner and the respondents.)

1. This petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes that have arisen between the petitioner and the respondents in respect of the Lease Deed dated 25.03.2011 between the petitioner and the respondents.

2. The learned counsel for the second and third respondents have consented for appointment of an Arbitrator.

3. The learned Additional Solicitor General for the petitioner has suggested two names of Retired Judges of this Court.

4. Recording the request of the learned Additional Solicitor General for the petitioner, Hon'ble Mr.V.Bharathidasan, Retired Judge of this Court, is appointed as an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. 5. The parties are at liberty to workout the venue for Arbitration at Chennai. 6.The Court is inclined to pass the following order:-

    (i) Mr.V.Bharathidasan, Retired Judge of this Court, (Mobile No.9444383139) residing at No.22, (L-45), 2nd Main Road, Kamaraj Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai – 600 041, is appointed as an Arbitrator to enter upon reference and adjudicate / resolve the inter se dispute between the parties.

    (ii) The learned Arbitrator appointed herein, shall after issuing notice to the parties and upon hearing them, endeavour to complete the arbitral proceedings and pass an award strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of twelve months after the date of completion of pleadings under Sub-Section 4 to Section 23 as is contemplated in Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, without getting influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this order.

    (iii) The learned Arbitrator appointed herein shall be paid fees and other incidental charges as may be fixed with the consent of parties or in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the same shall be borne by the parties equally. In case, the respondents remain ex parte, the petitioner shall pay the entire fee and other incidental charges to the Arbitrator and later recover the same from the respondents.

7. The Original Petition is allowed with the above observations, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

8. Since the Court has appointed an Arbitrator, it is open to the petitioner as well as the respondents to seek other reliefs under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the learned Arbitrator.

9. Interim order shall continue for a period of two months from today. It is open for the petitioner to move appropriate application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for continuation of the order before the learned Arbitrator.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top