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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 14417

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J
M/s.Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) – Appellant
Versus
M/s.Bhash Software Labs – Respondent
Arbitration Original Petition|under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.R.Harishankar
For the Respondents: Mr.S.Suresh

The court clarified procedures around the appointment of an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, ensuring continuity in arbitration even after an arbitrator's resignation.

Headnote:Statute Analysis: The petition was filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to appoint an arbitrator for disputes arising under an agreement dated 01.06.2018. Facts of the Case: The petitioner sought the appointment of an arbitrator after a previous arbitrator resigned and there was no response from the respondents.

Findings of Court:
The Court decided to substitute the arbitrator.

Issues: The core issue was the appointment of a sole arbitrator as per the agreement's clause.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court reasoned that substitution of the arbitrator was appropriate given the circumstances surrounding the resignation and the lack of response from the respondents.

Result: Accordingly, this petition is disposed of.

Table of Content
1. appointment of arbitrator under arbitration act (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. circumstances of arbitrator's resignation and response (Para 4 , 5)
3. court's orders on substitution of arbitrator (Para 6 , 7)

ORDER

This petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [for brevity 'the Act'] for appointment of an Arbitrator to decide the dispute and differences between the petitioner and the respondents in terms of the Agreement dated 01.06.2018.

2. When this petition came up for hearing on 02.01.2026, this Court passed the following order:

“This petition has been filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as the Act] to appoint a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent as per clause 11 of the Agreement for provision of SMS based PUSH services to Cellular Mobile Subscribers of BSNL dated 01.06.2018 and to direct the respondents to pay the costs.

2.The agreement provides for referring the dispute for Arbitration under clause 11 and the same is extracted hereunder:-

Clause 11: Dispute Settlement

11.1 In the event of any question, dispute or difference arising under this agreement or in connection there with (except as to the agreement) the same shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the CMD, BSNL, New Delhi or in case his designation is changed or his office is abolished, then in such cases to the sole arbitration of the officer for the time being entrusted (whether in addition to his own duties or otherwise) with the functions of the CMD, BSNL or the said officer is unable or unwilling to act as such, then to the sole arbitration of some other person appointed by CMD, BSNL or the said officer. The agreement to appoint an arbitrator will be in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

There will be no objection to any such appointment on the ground that the arbitrator is a BSNL employee or that he has to deal with the matter to which the agreement relates or that in the course of his duties as a BSNL servant he has expressed his views on all or any of the matters in dispute. The award of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on both the parties to the agreement. In the event of such an arbitrator to whom the matter is originally referred, being transferred or vacating his office or being unable to act for any reason whatsoever, the CMD, BSNL or the said officer shall appoint another person to act as an arbitrator in accordance with terms of the agreement and the person so appointed shall be entitled to proceed from the stage at which it was left out by his predecessors.

11.2 The arbitrator may from time to time with the consent of both the parties enlarge the time frame for making and publishing the award. Subject to the aforesaid, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the rules made thereunder, any modification thereof for the time being in force shall be deemed to apply to the arbitration proceeding under this clause.

11.3 The venue of the arbitration proceeding shall be the office of the CMD/BSNL, New Delhi or such other places as the arbitrator may decide.

3. The trigger notice under Section 21 of the Act was issued on 14.02.2024 and the same has also been received by the respondent. Since there was no response, the present petition has been filed before this Court.

4. Notice to the respondents returnable by 02.02.2026.

Private notice is also permitted.

5. Post this case for hearing on 02.02.2026.”

3. After service of notice, the respondents are represented through counsel.

4. Learned counsel appearing on either side submitted that a sole arbitrator was appointed and statement of claim was also filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the sole arbitrator resigned through a letter dated 11.06.2024. As a result, the present petition has been filed before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that the respondents had not even entered appearance before th

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