PUNJ LIOYED LTD Vs. PETRONET MHB LTD
LAWS(SC)-2005-4-18
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on April 29,2005

PUNJ LIOYED LTD Appellant
VERSUS
PETRONET MHB LTD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The agreement entered into between the parties contains an arbitration clause which reads as under: "14.1. Disputes or differences arising out of or in relation to agreement/contract shall be referred to the Functional Director of the owner who may either act himself as sole arbitrator or nominate some officer of the owner to act as an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences between the parties (except those in respect of which the decision of any person is by the contract expressed to be final and binding). 14.2. The contractor shall not be entitled to raise any objection to the appointment of such officer of the owner as the sole arbitrator on the ground that the said officer is an officer of the owner or that he/she has to deal or dealt with the matter to which the contract relates or that in the course of duties as an officer of the owner he/she has/had expressed views on all or any of the matters in dispute or difference. 14.3. In the event of the arbitrator to whom the matter is originally referred to is transferred or vacates office, the Functional Director, aforesaid, shall nominate another officer of the owner to act as arbitrator. 14.4. Such officer nominated as sole arbitrator shall be entitled to proceed with the arbitration from the stage at which it was left by the predecessor. It is the term of this contract that no person other than the Functional Director or a person nominated by Functional Director of the owner shall act as arbitrator."
(3.) Disputes and differences arose between the parties. The appellant served a 30 days' notice on the respondent demanding appointment of an arbitrator and reference of disputes to him. The respondent failed to act. On expiry of 30 days, the appellant moved the Chief Justice of the High Court for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Admittedly, even till the date of the moving of the application, the respondent had not made appointment consistently with the arbitration clause. The learned Judge designated by the Chief Justice of the High Court refused to appoint the arbitrator holding that the only remedy available to the appellant was to move in accordance with clause 14.1 abovesaid, whereupon the Functional Director would adjudicate upon the disputes as sole arbitrator.;


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