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

2023 Supreme(All) 2125

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
RAJEEV MISRA, J.
V.K. Gupta And Associates - Applicant
Versus
Superintending Engineer - Opposite Party
Arbitration And Concili. Appl.U/S11(4) No. 161 of 2022
Decided On : 06-09-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant :Satya Prakash, Apoorv Tiwari, Manoj Kumar Yadav, Raj Kumar Yadav, Sr. Advocate

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11(4) - Application for appointment of an arbitrator - Dispute between parties arising from a contract for continuation of a bridge - One arbitrator reclusing leading to vacancy - Court finds absence of jurisdiction for competent authority to appoint a new arbitrator post vacancy, deeming it necessary for the court to step in and appoint a sole arbitrator to serve justice and reduce costs - Resultantly, application allowed, appointing a retired judge as arbitrator. (Paras 6, 16, 18, 19)

Facts of the case:
The applicant sought the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(4) due to a vacancy caused by one of the arbitrators recusing himself from the proceedings and the inaction of the competent authority. The original contract included an arbitration clause under Clause 25.3, paving the way for arbitration in the event of disputes.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that given the failure of the competent authority to appoint a replacement arbitrator and the significant delay resulting from non-action, appointing a sole arbitrator was just and appropriate under the circumstances.

Issues: Whether the vacancy in the arbitral tribunal can be filled under Section 11(4) after the original arbitrator has recused themselves, and jurisdiction regarding the appointing authority.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that in light of the agreement and the vacancy, the competent authority had lost jurisdiction to appoint a new arbitrator, thus necessitating the court’s intervention to resolve disputes efficiently and reduce costs.

Result: Application allowed, appointing a retired judge as arbitrator.

Table of Content
1. hearing of parties by the court. (Para 1 , 2)
2. existence of arbitration clause in contract. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. formation of arbitral tribunal. (Para 6 , 7)
4. arguments regarding vacancy in tribunal. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
5. counterarguments by the opposing party. (Para 12 , 14)
6. court's observation on appointment authority. (Para 15 , 16)
7. application allowed. (Para 17 , 18)
8. appointment of sole arbitrator. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)

JUDGMENT :

(Rajeev Misra, J.)

Heard Mr. Dinesh Gupta along with Mr. Satya Prakash, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned Standing Counsel representing opposite party.

2. Perused the record.

3. This application under section 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by applicant for a direction that an Arbitrator be appointed to fill the vacancy in the Arbitral Tribunal (comprising of three Arbitrators) which was already continued by opposite party-1 itself or in the alternative appoint a sole arbitrator, to resolve the dispute between the parties.

4. Record shows that parties entered into an agreement, vide Contract Bond No. 08/SE-SRE/2010-11, dated 13.09.2008 for continuation of a bridge over the Yamuna River at Clause 25.3 of the General Condition of Contract contains an arbitration clause for redressal of the dispute arising out of the contract entered into by the parties. For ready reference, Clause 25.3 of the agreement is reproduced herein under:-

    "Arbitration (GCC Clause 25.3)

    The procedure for arbitration will be as follows:

    25.3 (a) In case of Dispute or difference arising between the Employer and a domestic contractor relating to any matter arising out of or connected with this agreement, such disputes or difference shall be settled in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The parties shall make efforts to agree on a sole arbitrator and only if such an attempt does not succeed and the Arbitral Tribunal consisting of 3 arbitrators one each to be appointed by the Employer and the Contractor and the third Arbitrator to be chosen by the two Arbitrators so appointed by the Parties to act as Presiding Arbitrator shall be considered. In case of failure of the two arbitrators appointed by the parties to reach upon a consensus within a period of 30 days from the appointment of the arbitrator appointed subsequently, the Presiding Arbitrator shall be appointed by the Council, Indian Roads Congress

    (b) The Arbitral Tribunal shall consist of three Arbitrators one each to be appointed by the Employer and the Contractor. The third Arbitrator shall be chosen by the two Arbitrators so appointed by the Parties, and shall act a presiding arbitrator. In case of failure of the two arbitrators appointed by the parties to reach upon a consensus within a period of 30 days from the appointment of the arbitrator appointed subsequently, the Presiding arbitrator shall be appointed by the Council, Indian Roads Congress.

    (c) If one of the parties fails to appoint its arbitrator in pursuance of sub-clause (a) and (b) above within 30 days after receipt of the notice of the appointment of its arbitrator by the other party, then the * Council, Indian Roads Congress shall appoint the arbitrator. A certified copy of the order of the Council, Indian Roads Congress, making such an appointment shall be furnished to each of the parties.

    (d) Arbitration proceedings shall be held in India, and the language of the arbitration proceedings and that of all documents and communications between the parties shall be English.

    (e) The decision of the majority of arbitrators shall be final and binding upon both parties. The cost and expenses of Arbitration proceedings will be paid as determined by the arbitral tribunal. However, the expenses incurred by each party in connection with the preparation, presentation, etc. of its proceedings as also the fees and expenses paid to the arbitrator appointed by such party or on its behalf shall be borne by each party itself.

    (f) Performance

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