Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Appellant-contractor and Respondent had entered into a agreement to set up a Wind Farm Project – Agreement contained an arbitration clause (Clause 20) – Disputes between the parties – Respondent invoked arbitration under Clause 20 of the agreement, and nominated its arbitrator, with request to Appellant to make nomination of its arbitrator – Appellant failed to do so – Subsequently, Respondent filed petition u/s.11(6) of the 1996 Act before the High Court, requesting the Court to appoint an arbitrator on behalf of Appellant in terms of Clause 20 of the agreement – High Court took the view that since the parties had in their agreement agreed to refer all their disputes under the 1996 Act, it was a fit case for appointment of arbitrator and that the agreement provided for a three-member arbitral tribunal – Respondent having already nominated its arbitrator, the Appellant was directed to appoint an arbitrator, and it was further directed that on such nomination, the two arbitrators would appoint the presiding arbitrator – Appeal before Supreme Court by AppellantContractor – During proceedings before Supreme Court, the parties agreed to have their disputes adjudicated under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 by a Court-appointed Sole Arbitrator – Accordingly, the Supreme Court appointed a former Judge of the Madras High Court, as the Sole Arbitrator.
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.