PRICOL LIMITED Vs. JOHNSON CONTROLS ENTERPRISE LTD
LAWS(SC)-2014-12-42
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on December 16,2014

Pricol Limited Appellant
VERSUS
Johnson Controls Enterprise Ltd Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

PERKINS EASTMAN ARCHITECTS DPC VS. HSCC (INDIA) LTD. [LAWS(SC)-2019-11-87] [REFERRED TO]
RSPL LIMITED VS. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. [LAWS(GJH)-2021-5-48] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED VS. M/S. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INIDA [LAWS(DLH)-2020-11-15] [REFERRED TO]
GLENCORE INTERNATIONAL AG VS. INDIAN POTASH LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2019-8-7] [REFERRED TO]
IRCON INTERNATION LTD. VS. PROGRESSIVE INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2023-3-188] [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP TRANSCORE PRIVATE LIMITED VS. TBEA ENERGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(GJH)-2021-4-24] [REFERRED TO]
RAJKUMAR TAMOTIA VS. ALOK SHARMA [LAWS(MPH)-2024-5-93] [REFERRED TO]
TRF LTD. VS. ENERGO ENGINEERING PROJECTS LTD. [LAWS(SC)-2017-7-67] [REFERRED TO]
OM SAI RK CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. FORSIGHT INFRACTECH PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(MPH)-2022-4-149] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

RANJAN GOGOI, J. - (1.)APPOINTMENT of an Arbitrator under the Joint Venture Agreement dated 26th December, 2011 (for short "the JVA") by and between the parties has been sought by means of the present application.
(2.)THERE is no dispute between the parties with regard to the existence of the JVA and/or with regard to the fact that disputes and differences over the respective rights and liabilities of the parties under the JVA have surfaced. The Arbitration clause under the JVA is in the following terms: JUDGEMENT_42_LAWS(SC)12_2014.htm
(3.)THERE are certain facts and events which have occurred during the pendency of the present proceeding which must immediately be taken note of.
The parties are not in dispute that the "Singapore Chamber of Commerce" mentioned in clause 30.2 of the JVA is not an Arbitration Institution having any Rules for appointment of Arbitrators. However, construing the said reference to the "Singapore Chamber of Commerce" to be one to the "Singapore International Arbitration Centre" ("SIAC" for short), the first respondent, invoking the arbitration clause, had moved the said Authority i.e. SIAC for appointment of an Arbitrator. This was so done on 5th September, 2014. A copy of the said notice/intimation was received by the petitioner on 11th September, 2014. Thereafter, the petitioner had instituted the present proceeding on 15th September, 2014. In the meantime, the SIAC, exercising its powers under Section 8(2) read with Section 8(3) of the Singapore International Arbitration Act (Cap. 143A) (for short "the IAA"), had appointed one Mr. Steven Y.H. Lim as the sole Arbitrator. In a preliminary meeting between the parties and the learned sole Arbitrator held on 30th October, 2014, it was indicated by the petitioner that it would be challenging the jurisdiction of the sole Arbitrator appointed by the SIAC. Accordingly, on directions of the learned sole Arbitrator, there has been an exchange of written submissions on the issue of jurisdiction. A hearing on the question of jurisdiction was also held in Singapore on 18th November, 2014. Thereafter, by a partial award, dated 27th November, 2014, the sole Arbitrator had ruled that the appointment made by the SIAC under the IAA is valid as the parties have expressly agreed that Singapore would be the seat of Arbitration.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.