YASHWITH CONSTRUCTION P LTD Vs. SIMPLEX CONCRETE PILES INDIA LTD
LAWS(SC)-2006-7-74
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on July 03,2006

YASH Appellant
VERSUS
SIMPLEX CONCRETE PILES INDIA LTD. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

S B P AND CO VS. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

PRODDATUR CABLE TV DIGI SERVICES VS. SITI CABLE NETWORK LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2020-1-121] [REFERRED TO]
HEMANT B. PRASAD AND ANOTHER VS. PERFECT SOLUTIONS, REP. BY ITS PROP. SRI. PRAFUL S. SHAH, HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-2018-6-75] [REFERRED TO]
CHAIRMAN, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. VS. M/S. LALTU FILLING STATION [LAWS(CAL)-2022-12-51] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI R.B. RAJESH VS. THE CHIEF ENGINEER AND OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-2018-6-191] [REFERRED TO]
NEWTON ENGINEERING AND CHEMICALS LTD VS. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2006-11-106] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. VOESTALPINE SCHIENEN GMBH VS. DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD. [LAWS(SC)-2017-2-79] [REFERRED TO]
M/S GUINDY INDUSTRIAL ESTATE INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADATION COMPANY GARMENT COMPLEX-II REP BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER VS. M/S GURUMURTHY ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES CIVIL ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS & OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-2011-3-406] [REFERRED TO]
DSC VENTURES PVT. LTD. VS. MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS [LAWS(DLH)-2020-6-73] [REFERRED TO]
YASHWITHA CONSTRUCTIONS P LTD VS. SIMPLEX CONCRETE PILES INDIA LTD [LAWS(APH)-2008-5-2] [REFERRED TO]
SATYA PRAKASH SINGH VS. DINESH PRAKASH SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2014-11-114] [REFERRED TO]
G K TRADERS SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP VS. U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-9-39] [REFERRED TO]
SHAILESH DHAIRYAWAN VS. MOHAN BALKRISHNA LULLA [LAWS(SC)-2015-10-50] [REFERRED TO]
NIMET RESOURCES INC. VS. ESSAR STEELS LTD. [LAWS(SC)-2007-5-205] [REFERRED TO]
MODI PROJECTS LIMITED VS. EASTERN CENTRAL RAILWAYS [LAWS(JHAR)-2017-2-111] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. CONTROL SYSTEMS VS. M.P. MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL & ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2018-1-325] [REFERRED TO]
M R RAGHURAM VS. M R JAYARAM [LAWS(KAR)-2013-9-56] [REFERRED TO]
BHAYANA BUILDERS PVT LTD VS. ORIENTAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS PVT LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2018-2-435] [REFERRED TO]
KMC CONSTRUCTION LIMITED VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2017-8-70] [REFERRED TO]
CHHOTANAGPUR REGIONAL HANDLOOM VS. ASSOCIATION OF CORPORATION AND APEX [LAWS(DLH)-2008-9-88] [REFERRED TO]
STERLITE TECHNOLOGIES LTD. VS. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-11-71] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ KUMAR AGRAWAL VS. NEPA LIMITED [LAWS(MPH)-2019-5-133] [REFERRED TO]
MAYUR ASSOCIATES, ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS, VS. MR. GURMEET SINGH, GENERAL MANAGER [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-10-116] [REFERRED TO]
DENEL PROPRIETARY LIMITED VS. GOVT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF DEFENCE [LAWS(SC)-2012-1-2] [REFERRED TO]
MANISH KUMAR CHAND VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2016-8-85] [REFERRED]
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. P.ROY & CO [LAWS(ALL)-2021-9-97] [REFERRED TO]
GMR AMBALA CHANDIGARH EXPRESSWAYS PVT LTD VS. NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2018-3-34] [REFERRED TO]
M. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-2015-10-75] [REFERRED TO]
BANGLORE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT VS. IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK PVT LTD [LAWS(KAR)-2009-10-36] [REFERRED TO]
GUINDY INDUSTRIAL ESTATE INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADATION COMPANY GARMENT COMPLEX II VS. M/S GURUMURTHY ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES CIVIL ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS [LAWS(MAD)-2011-3-838] [REFERRED TO]
M/S S.B. CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. VS. EASTERN CENTRAL RAILWAYS [LAWS(JHAR)-2017-2-75] [REFERRED TO]
CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD , ROURKELA VS. EASTERN CENTRAL RAILWAYS, BIHAR AND OTHERS [LAWS(JHAR)-2017-2-168] [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LIMITED VS. GANESH CONTAINERS MOVERS SYNDICATE [LAWS(SC)-2019-1-71] [REFERRED TO]
PRASAD CONSTRUCTION & CO VS. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED [LAWS(PAT)-2016-8-177] [REFERRED TO]
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD VS. SUBHA MOULEE INDANE GAS SERVICE [LAWS(MAD)-2010-2-672] [REFERRED TO]
THE SUPREME INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. M.P. WAREHOUSING & LOGISTICS CORPORATION & ANOTHER [LAWS(MPH)-2017-8-61] [REFERRED TO]
VALECHA ENGINEERING LIMITED VS. D.S. CONSTRUCTIONS LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2009-4-250] [REFERRED TO]
SHANE DUFF VS. ESSEL SPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2013-1-71] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK GOEL VS. AVINASH CHANDRA AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-2-445] [REFERRED TO]
S B CONSTRUCTION COMPANY VS. U P RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LTD AND 4 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2014-11-375] [REFERRED TO]
ISHVAKOO (INDIA) PVT LTD. VS. NATIONAL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2013-5-457] [REFERRED TO]
LOMBARDI ENGINEERING LIMITED VS. UTTARAKHAND JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2023-11-6] [REFERRED TO]
RAWANI CONSTRUCTION VS. NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(ORI)-2020-12-6] [REFERRED TO]
ACC LIMITED VS. GLOBAL CEMENTS LTD [LAWS(SC)-2012-6-2] [REFERRED TO]
HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY LTD. VS. STERLITE TECHNOLOGIES LTD. [LAWS(SC)-2015-9-7] [REFERRED TO]
B S N L VS. SUBASH CHANDRA KANCHAN [LAWS(SC)-2006-9-57] [REFERRED TO]
CBRE SOUTH ASIA PVT LTD VS. FIITJEE [LAWS(DLH)-2019-3-299] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ CHAWLA AND CO. STOCK AND SHARE BROKERS VS. NINE MEDIA AND INFORMATION SERVICES LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2023-1-194] [REFERRED TO]
SAP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. COX & KINGS LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2019-4-182] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH K SHAH VS. KAMLESH K SAHANI [LAWS(BOM)-2017-11-325] [REFERRED TO]
TAXUS INFRASTRUCTURE AND POWER PROJECTS PVT. LTD. VS. SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC INDIA PVT. LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-9-139] [REFERRED TO]
S B P AND COMPANY VS. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD [LAWS(SC)-2009-10-37] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA VS. BUMIHIWAY DDB LTD [LAWS(SC)-2006-9-84] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) VS. U.P. STATE BRIDGE CORPORATION LTD. [LAWS(SC)-2014-9-130] [REFERRED TO]
RAM MOHAN AGRAWAL VS. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(UTN)-2015-5-116] [REFERRED TO]
LDK SOLAR HI-TECH(SUZUHOU) CO LTD VS. HINDUSTAN CLEANENERGY LIMITED (FORMERLY MOSER BEAR CLEAN ENERGY LIMITED) [LAWS(DLH)-2018-7-64] [REFERRED TO]
JAIRATH CONSTRUCTIONS VS. TRIVENI ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIES LTD AND ANR [LAWS(ALL)-2018-4-232] [REFERRED TO]
BAGHEL INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD. VS. N.T.P.C. LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-11-298] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. RAMKY ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT LIMITED VS. THE KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY [LAWS(KER)-2018-11-429] [REFERRED TO]
VENKATESH EARTHEN PRIVATE LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-2019-2-218] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

P. K. Balasubramanyan, J. - (1.)Delay condoned.
(2.)On a dispute having arisen, the Managing Director of the respondent company appointed an arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause. The arbitrator resigned. Thereupon the Managing Director of the respondent company, in view of the mandate in the arbitration agreement promptly appointed another arbitrator. At that stage, the petitioner approached the Chief Justice of the High Court under Section 11, sub-section 5 read with Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act"), praying that the Chief Justice may appoint a substitute arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties. The Chief Justice found that the appointment of the second arbitrator by the Managing Director, after the resignation of the first arbitrator, was valid in law since it was permissible under the contract and the right to make such an appointment was saved by Section 15(2) of the Act. The argument that Section 15(2) of the Act referred to statutory rules providing for appointment of Arbitrators and not to a contractual provision for such appointment was rejected by the learned Chief Justice. It was held by him that no occasion arose for him to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act in the case. Thus, the application was dismissed leaving the parties to pursue their claims before the arbitrator appointed by the Managing Director in terms of arbitration agreement between the parties.
(3.)The petitioner challenged the decision of the learned Chief Justice by way of a Writ Petition in the High Court. The Division Bench noticed the decision of this Court in SBP and Co. vs. Patel Engineering Ltd. and another [(2005) 8 SCC 618] holding that the order passed by the Chief Justice is a judicial order and no Writ Petition would lie in the High Court challenging such an order and only an appeal could be filed in the Supreme Court invoking Article 136 of the Constitution of India. But the Division Bench thought that since that decision saved appointments made on or before the date that decision was rendered by this Court, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner would also be saved and the Writ Petition could be decided on merits. The Division Bench held that the position obtaining under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration Act of 1940 differed from that available under the present Act especially in the context of Section 15 thereof and that in terms of Section 15(2) of the Act, the Managing Director could, on the basis of the arbitration agreement, appoint another arbitrator when the originally appointed arbitrator resigned, thus attracting Section 15(1)(a) of the Act. It further held that Section 15(2) covered not only cases of appointments under statutory rules or rules framed under the Act, but it would also take in the terms of the agreement between the parties for appointment of an arbitrator and in that view, the Managing Director, in the case on hand and on the terms of the arbitration agreement, would have the right to appoint a substitute arbitrator. Thus, it was held that the learned Chief Justice was right in rejecting the application made by the petitioner. Thus, the Writ Petition was dismissed. It is this decision of the Division Bench that is sought to be challenged in this petition for special leave to appeal.


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