M/s Mayavti Trading Pvt. Ltd. vs Pradyuat Deb Burman

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

5 September 2019

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 7023 of 2019

Result

Dismissed

Bench

R.F. Nariman, R. Subhash Reddy, Surya Kant

Citation

[2019] 12 S.C.R. 123 : 2019 INSC 1008

Headnote

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sub-section (6-A) to s.11 [Amendment Act, 2015] and s.11 [Amendment Act, 2019] – Effect of – Held: After the amendment Act of 2019, s.11(6A) has been omitted because appointment of arbitrators is to be done institutionally, in which case the Supreme Court or the High Court under the old statutory regime are no longer required to appoint arbitrators and consequently to determine whether an arbitration agreement exists.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sub-section (6-A) to s.11 [Amendment Act, 2015] – Effect of – Held: s.11(6A) is confined to the examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement and is to be understood in the narrow sense as has been laid down in the judgment Duro Felguera, S.A. v. Gangavaram Port Limited (2017) 9 SCC 729 in paras 48 and 59.

United India Insurance Company Limited v. Antique Art Exports Private Limited (2019) 5 SCC 362 – overruled. Duro Felguera, S.A. v. Gangavaram Port Limited, (2017)

9 SCC 729 : [2017] 10 SCR 285; SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd. and Anr. (2005) 8 SCC 618 : [2005]

4 Suppl. SCR 688; ONGC Mangalore Petrochemicals Limited v. ANS Constructions Limited and another, (2018) 3 SCC 373 : [2018] 2 SCR 598; Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. v. Coastal Marine Constructions & Engineering Ltd., (2019) SCC OnLine SC 515 – referred to.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. F. NARIMAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. We have heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. Shyam Divan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent at considerable length. 3. On the facts of this case, we do not propose to interfere with the impugned decision of 12.03.2019 and, therefore, do not find it necessary to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 4. Having said this, however, during the course of argument, a recent decision of this Court was

View Subscription Plans →