11 of the agreements between the parties; and whether there was a valid arbitration agreement between the parties, justifying the referral to the Chief Engineer under Clause 11.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss. 7(1), 2(b) – Valid arbitration agreement – On facts, in terms of Clause 11 of the agreements, any dispute that would arise between the parties would be resolved firstly by mutual discussion and on a failure of the process, by referring the matter to the Chief Engineer whose decision would be final and binding – Writ petition challenging the notice demanding arrears of tariff for the supply of water – Single Judge declined to entertain the petition and relegated the petitioner to the contractual remedy in terms of the agreement – Division Bench upheld the same – Correctness: Held: Clause 11 does not constitute an arbitration agreement – Clause
11.2 of the agreement does not constitute the Chief Engineer as an arbitral tribunal – Agreements do not postulate that the Chief Engineer would adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties nor is there any provision to the effect that the Chief Engineer would resolve the dispute after letting in evidence or allowing the parties an opportunity of presenting their respective cases before them – Forum comprising the Chief Engineer lacks the trappings of an arbitral forum – Chief Engineer is an employee of the Board – Though the Single Judge was of the view that Clause 4 of the agreement empowered the Board to revise its rates, nonetheless, without dealing with the power and the manner of its exercise any further, the High Court relegated the appellant to the remedy under Clause 11 before the Chief Engineer – High Court ought not to have relegated the parties to the Chief Engineer on the strength of Clause 11 – It would have been appropriate if the High Court had finally determined the challenge addressed by the appellant in the writ proceedings u/Art. 226 of the Constitution – Division Bench exclusively relied on the provisions of Clause 11 while coming to the conclusion that the dispute between the parties fell within the ambit of the clause – Provision for settlement of disputes contained in Clause 11 does not constitute the Chief Engineer as an arbitral tribunal since he cannot be regarded as an impartial officer nor do the provisions of Clause 11 incorporate the trappings of an arbitral tribunal – Both the judgment of the Single Judge and the Division Bench set aside. [Paras 16-18, 22-26]
Arbitration – Valid arbitration agreement – Conditions to be satisfied – Stated. [Para 19]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Jagdish Chander v. Ramesh Chander (2007) 5 SCC 719 : [2007] 5 SCR 720; Jaipur Jila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited v. Ajay Sales and Suppliers 2021 SCC OnLine SC 730; Voestalpine Schienen GMBH v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited (2017) 4 SCC 665 : [2017] 1 SCR 798; Ellora Paper Mills Ltd. v. State of M.P (2022) 3 SCC 1 – referred to. OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.