Sr. No. 204

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

AT JAMMU

CJ Court

Case : Arbitration Application No. 23 of 2014

(Through virtual mode)

M/s Kashmir Steel Rolling Mills

…Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s)

Through: Sh. Pranav Kohli, Sr. Advocate

with Sh. Farhan Mirza, Advocate

v/s

Steel Authority of India and another

…. Respondent(s)

Through: Sh. Ravinder Sharma, Advocate.

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

ORDER

1.

Heard Sh. Pranav Kohli, Senior counsel assisted by Sh. Farhan Mirza,

learned counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Ravinder Sharma, learned counsel for

the respondents.

2.

The petitioner has applied for appointment of an independent arbitrator

in connection with the disputes which have arisen inter se the parties in

reference to agreement dated 26.05.2011 executed between the parties.

3.

There is no dispute to the fact that the aforesaid agreement contains a

clause which provides for the resolution of disputes. The aforesaid clause 28 in

the first instance provides that any dispute/difference whatsoever arising

between the parties relating to the said contract shall be resolved through

conciliation of the SCOPE Forum. In the event the conciliation fails the parties

may get it resolved through arbitration for which either party may upon giving

notice to the other party ask for reference of disputes to the arbitration under

the SCOPE Forum of Arbitration. It is further provided that any such

2

disputes or differences between the parties shall be settled by the arbitration in

accordance with the rules of the arbitration of the SCOPE Forum and the award

made in pursuance thereof shall be final and binding on the parties.

4.

The only objection of Sh. Ravinder Sharma, learned counsel for the Steel

Authority of India is that the petitioner is not entitled to appointment of an

independent arbitrator and that it is a case where the parties have in

unequivocal terms agreed for an institutional arbitration of the SCOPE Forum.

5.

The issue is not as to who would be the arbitrator whether it will be an

individual person or through an institution or a person nominated by said

institution. The issue is whether the disputes are referable to arbitration.

6.

It is evident from the the Clause 28.5 of the contract that the venue of the

arbitration has to be Jammu and further that the courts at Jammu alone shall

have jurisdiction over all the matters in dispute vide Clause 28.6 of the

contract.

7.

In view of the above, even if any matter is referred to an institutional

arbitration, the venue of the arbitration would remain to be at Jammu.

8.

Admittedly, after the disputes have arisen and the conciliation was not

fruitful, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause vide notice dated

01.05.2014/ 27.05.2014 to which objection was taken by the Steel Authority of

India but when the arbitration had not proceeded in any forum, the petitioner

was forced to file the present application under Section 11(6) of the Act for the

appointment of an independent arbitrator.

9.

Admittedly, in the case at hand there is an agreement which contains an

arbitration clause and parties before this court are also parties to the said

agreement. The petitioner in connection with the disputes arising out of the

said contract has invoked the arbitration clause and therefore the disputes are

3

obviously liable to be referred to the sole arbitrator as provided in the

agreement whether it happens to be an institutional arbitrator.

10.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the disputes in relation to the

above referred contract dated 26.05.2011 inter se the parties are referred to the

institutional arbitration of a SCOPE Forum expecting that the Secretary of the

said Forum would without any delay provide a panel of arbitrators to the

parties for selection of a common arbitrator of th