Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.11(6), 12(5) – Ministry of Home Affairs floated tender – Applicant’s bid was accepted as per the terms and conditions of the tender which provided for arbitration clause which enabled the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs to appoint an officer in the Ministry of Law as the arbitrator – Applicant invoking arbitration, nominated a retired Judge of the High Court as the Sole Arbitrator which as per the respondent was contrary to the Conditions of Tender – Application filed u/s.11(6) before Supreme Court, held:The arbitration clause in the present case enables a serving employee of the Union of India, a party to the contract, to nominate a serving employee of the Union of India as the Sole Arbitrator – Such arbitration clause clearly falls within the expressly ineligible category provided in Paragraph 1 of Schedule VII, read with s.12(5) of the Act – As the grounds of challenge to the appointment of an arbitrator u/s.12(5) of the Act operate notwithstanding any prior agreement to the contrary, the appointment of an officer of the Ministry of Law and Justice as an arbitrator cannot be given effect to – There is no immunity arising out of Article 299, to support the contention that for contracts expressed to be made by the President of India, the ineligibility of appointment as an arbitrator as contemplated u/s.12(5) of the Act, read with Schedule VII, will be inapplicable – Application u/s.11(6) allowed – Constitution of India–Article 299. Constitution of India– Article 299 – Purpose and object of – Discussed–Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Voestalpine Schienen GmbH v. DMRC (2017) 4 SCC
665 : [2017] 1 SCR 798 – distinguished.
Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. M/s ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV) A Joint Venture
Company (2020) 14 SCC 712 : [2019] 16 SCR 1234 – held inapplicable.
Perkins Eastman Architects DPC and Another v. HSCC (India) Ltd.(2020) 20 SCC 760; Chatturbhuj Vithaldas Jasani v. Moreshwar Parashram & Ors [1954] SCR
817 – relied on.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and ors. v. Raja Transport Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 8 SCC 520 : [2009] 13 SCR 510; K. P. Chowdhry v. State of Madhya Pradesh. And Others [1966] 3 SCR 919; Bhikraj Jaipuria v. Union of India [1962] 2 SCR 880; Mulamchand v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1968) 3 SCR 214; State of Assam and Ors. v. Shri Kanak Chandra Dutta, [1967] 1 SCR 679; Union of India v. M/s Tantia Constructions Ltd SLP (C) No. 12670/2020; JWS Steel Ltd v. Southwestern Railways and Anr. SLP (C) No. 9462/2022– referred to.
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.