Appointing of Arbitration–
It is a cardinal principle of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act that the parties are free to decide the number of arbitrators, provided, it is an odd number, as well as the procedure for appointing them. However, if the parties are not able to agree on the said procedure, or constitute the Arbitral Tribunal to their mutual satisfaction, either of the party has an option to route to an appropriate remedy under Section 11 of the Act, which provides detailed machinery for appointment of Arbitrator through judicial intervention. Justice Amitava Roy, a former Judge of this Court, is appointed as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties on such fees he may fix. Nevertheless to say, the said appointment is subject to the necessary disclosure being made under Section 12 of the Act and the Arbitrator not being ineligible under Section 12(5) of the Act. The petitions as well as interlocutory application, if any, are disposed of accordingly. .....IBI Consultancy India Private Limited =VS= DSC Ltd., (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (SC) 41] ....View Full Judgment

An arbitration agreement exists between the parties–
When an arbitration agreement exists between the parties, the present petition under Section 11 (5) read with Section 11 (9) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, shall have to be allowed with appropriate directions. .....ETOILE CREATIONS =VS= SARL DANSET DECO (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (SC) 628] ....View Full Judgment

Appoint Sole Arbitrator– With the consent of the Counsel for the parties, we appoint Justice G. S. Singhvi, former Judge of this Court, as the Sole Arbitrator, who will adjudicate all the claims and counter claims afresh. If the Sole Arbitrator requires the assistance of qualified Engineer/s or Expert/s, he may appoint such person/s under Section 26 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Ld. Arbitrator is free to fix his fees after consultation with the parties, which will be borne equally by them. ...National Highways Authority of India =VS= M/S. Progressive Construction Ltd., (Civil), 2021(1) [10 LM (SC) 4] ....View Full Judgment

As rightly observed by the High Court, Anilkumar Patel has gone to the extent of even disputing his signature in the award dated 07.07.1996 by drafting choreographed petition. Having accepted the award through Anilkumar Patel, being the head of the family, appellant Nos. 1(a) to 1(d) and respondent No.10 cannot turn round and contend that they had not received the copy of the award. The High Court rightly held that "....Receiving the copy by Anilkumar on behalf of himself and respondent nos. 2 to 6, under an acknowledgment, is in terms of compliance of Section 31(5) of the Act and Section 34(3) thereof....." and that the application filed under Section 34 of the Act by Anilkumar Patel and appellant Nos. 1(a) to 1(d) and respondent No.10 was barred by limitation. We do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. .....Anilkumar Jinabhai Patel =VS= Pravinchandra Jinabhai Patel, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (SC) 7] ....View Full Judgment

Arbitrator award–– Section 31(7)(b) of the Act of 1996 clearly mandates that, in the event the Arbitrator does not give any specific directions as regards the rate of interest on the amount awarded, such amount 'shall' carry interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of award till the date of payment. Since the Arbitration Act, 1940 has been repealed by way of Section 85 of the Act of 1996, the Schedule to the Arbitration Act, including the State amendment, also stands repealed.
In the instant case, though the agreement was earlier to the date of coming into force of the Act of 1996, the proceedings admittedly commenced on 27.10.1999 and were conducted in accordance with the Act of 1996. If that be so, para 7A of Section 24 of the U.P. Amendment Act has no application to the case at hand. Since the rate of interest granted by the Arbitrator is in accordance with Section 31(7)(b) of the Act of 1996, the High Court and the District Judge were not justified in reducing the rate of interest by following the U.P. Amendment Act.
The appeal, succeeds and it is accordingly allowed. The judgments of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 05.12.2007 in F.A.F.O Nos.3728 and 947 all of 2007 and the order of the District Judge, Gorakhpur in Misc. Case No.5 of 2002 dated 28.10.2006 are set aside only insofar as reduction of rate of interest is concerned. The interest awarded by the Arbitrator in accordance with Section 31(7)(b) of the Act of 1996 is restored. …M/S Shahi and Associates =VS= State of U.P., (Civil), 2021(2) [11 LM (SC) 30] ....View Full Judgment

Award of Arbitrator– Legislature restricted the role of courts in case where matter is subject to the arbitration–
It is a settled law that the process of interpretation is based on the objective view of a reasonable person, given the context in which the contracting parties made their agreement. On a perusal of the said two paragraphs of the impugned judgment, we fail to understand that on what parameters the High Court has interpreted Clause 19 in light of Clause 25 of the Contract. Both the clauses stand on different footing. Clause 19 deals, inter alia, with the matter of wages whereas Clause 25 deals with the matter of Octroi Sales Tax and other Duties. Such interpretation adopted by the High Court is against the cardinal principle of law which says that the terms of the contract shall be construed by the courts after having regard to the intention of the parties. Courts ought not to take any hypothetical view as it may cause prejudice to either of the parties. We are of the considered view that the High Court erred in law. Accordingly, we are inclined to allow these appeals and set aside the decision of the courts below as also the Award. Parties to bear their own cost. .....Union of India =VS= M/s. Varindera Constructions Ltd., (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (SC) 37] ....View Full Judgment

Arbitrator– The appointment of Sri S.T. Madnani, Advocate as an Arbitrator was disputed and it was contended that the said Advocate being the counsel for the respondent No. 1 and its partners in other cases cannot act as an Arbitrator in respect of the disputes to which the respondent No. 1 is a party.
Present circumstance the learned Arbitrator would not be fair to them even if not biased. It could no doubt be only a perception of the appellants herein. Be it so, no room should be given for even such a feeling more particularly when in the matter of arbitration the very basis is that the parties get the opportunity of nominating a judge of their choice in whom they have trust and faith unlike in a normal course of litigation where they do not have such choice.
An award passed by the learned Arbitrator was not sustainable and the learned District Judge was justified in entertaining the petition under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 to set aside the award. In that view, we are of the opinion that the learned Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay was not justified in allowing the appeal filed under Section 37(1)(b) of the Act, 1996.
(i) the judgment dated 30 and 31 of August, 2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in First Appeal No.187 of 2007 is set aside;
(ii) consequently, the judgment dated 06.11.2006 passed by the Principal District Judge Nagpur in MCA No.538/2006 setting aside the award dated 08.08.2006 is restored;
(iii) the parties are reserved the liberty of availing their remedy of arbitration in accordance with law and all contentions on merits relating to the claim/counter claim are left open.
(iv) The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs. …Vinod Bhaiyalal Jain=VS=Wadhwani Parmeshwari Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., (Civil), 2020 (1) [8 LM (SC) 5] ....View Full Judgment

The Majority Award, the Appellant had been directed to pay certain amounts to the Respondent under their agreement dated 14.12.1993–
The view taken in the Majority Award, as confirmed by the High Court in the exercise of its powers under Sections 34 and 37 of the 1996 Act, is a possible view based upon a reasonable construction of the terms of the agreement dated 14.12.1993 between the Appellant and the Respondent and consideration of the material on record. We are also of the opinion that the dispute was covered under the agreement between the Appellant and the Respondent dated 14.12.1993, and as such the dispute is governed by the arbitration clause under the said agreement. Thus, we find no reason to disturb the Majority Award on the ground that the subject matter of the dispute was not arbitrable. ...MMTC Ltd. =VS= M/S Vedanta Ltd., (Civil), 2019 (1) [6 LM (SC) 51] ....View Full Judgment