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

2017 Supreme(SC) 424

KURIAN JOSEPH, R.BANUMATHI
UNION OF INDIA – Appellant
Versus
BESCO LTD. – Respondent


JUDGMENT

KURIAN, J.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4483 OF 2017 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 17838 of 2014)

Leave granted.

2. The short question arising for consideration in this case is whether the Chief Justice of a High Court or any person or institution designated by him, while exercising power under Section 11(6) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) is bound to nominate an arbitrator as specified in the agreement for arbitration. The designated Judge in the High Court took the view that the appellant has lost the mandate to appoint an arbitrator since it failed to appoint the arbitrator within the permitted time and hence nominated an independent arbitrator.

3. Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General, placing reliance on Union of India and another v. M.P. Gupta, (2004) 10 SCC 504 and Union of India and others v. Master Construction Company, (2011) 12 SCC 349 submitted that the designated Judge, exercising the power under Section 11(6) of the Act, is bound to nominate a person as stipulated in the agreement for arbitration. In M.P. Gupta (supra), the relevant clauses on arbitration contained a provision that the arbitrators shou


































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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top