advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Friday, April 1, 2016

The petitioner’s case is that by letter dated 28th January, 2015 the respondent was called upon to name an Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes that have arisen between them but the respondent has failed to do the needful, leaving no alternative for the petitioner except to seek the appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of Section 11(6) of the Act from this Court.The averments made in the petition must, in the absence of any counter from the respondent, be taken to be correct at least for the purposes of deciding whether the matter ought to be referred to an Arbitrator. This is especially so when the averments are supported by an affidavit filed by the petitioner. In that view, therefore, we see no reason to decline the prayer for appointment of an Arbitrator made by the petitioner. We, accordingly, appoint Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.S. Bedi, former Judge of the Supreme Court of India as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes that have arisen between the parties. The Arbitrator shall issue notices to the parties in connection with the arbitral proceedings. He is left free to determine his fee. We make it clear that we have expressed no opinion on the merits of the case which aspect is left open for the parties to urge before the worthy Arbitrator. No costs.

                                                              NON-REPORTABLE
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                         CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
                     ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 23 OF 2015


PURPLE INDIA HOLDINGS LTD.              …PETITIONER

                                   VERSUS

DRILLING & OFFSHORE PTE. LTD.                …RESPONDENT





                                O  R  D  E  R

T.S. THAKUR, CJI.

1.     In  this  petition  under  Section  11(6)  of  the  Arbitration   and
Conciliation Act, 1996 the  respondent  has  not  appeared  to  contest  the
prayer for appointment of an arbitrator in terms of the  arbitration  clause
found in Engagement Letter dated 24th October, 2013.  The  Clause  reads  as
under:

“12. Jurisdiction & Dispute Resolution:  This  Engagement  Letter  shall  be
governed by and construed  in  accordance  with  the  laws  of  India.   The
parties agree that any legal action or proceedings  arising  out  of  or  in
connection with this Engagement Letter may be brought only in the  Court  of
Mumbai.



Any and all disputes, controversies or claims (the  “Dispute”)  arising  out
of or in connection with  this  Engagement  Letter,  including  any  Dispute
regarding the validity, interpretation, implementation or alleged breach  of
any provision of this Engagement Letter shall be settled amicably by  mutual
consensus, failing which by arbitration to be conducted in  accordance  with
the provision of the Indian  Arbitration  and  Conciliation  Act,  1996,  as
amended (the “Arbitration Act”).   Arbitration  shall  be  held  in  Mumbai,
India.



The Company shall appoint  one  arbitrator  and  Purple  shall  appoint  one
arbitrator and the two arbitrators shall appoint the third or the  presiding
arbitrator.  In the event that Purple or the Company  fails  to  appoint  an
arbitrator4 or the arbitrators fail  to  appoint  the  third  arbitrator  as
provided herein, such arbitrator(s) shall be appointed  in  accordance  with
the Arbitration Act.  The arbitration proceedings  shall  be  conducted  and
the award shall be rendered in the English language.  The award rendered  by
the arbitrator or arbitrators shall be final, conclusive and binding on  all
parties to this Engagement Letter and shall be  subject  to  enforcement  in
any court of competent jurisdiction.  Each party  shall  bear  the  cost  of
preparing and  presenting  its  case,  and  the  cost  of  the  arbitration,
including fees and expenses of the arbitrators, shall be shared  equally  by
the parties, unless the award otherwise provides.  Subject to the  foregoing
arbitration  provision,  the  court   of   Mumbai   shall   have   exclusive
jurisdiction with respect to any dispute.”



2.    The petitioner’s case is that by letter dated 28th January,  2015  the
respondent was called upon to name an Arbitrator  for  adjudication  of  the
disputes that have arisen between them but the respondent has failed  to  do
the needful, leaving no alternative for the petitioner except  to  seek  the
appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of Section 11(6) of the Act from  this
Court.



3.    We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The  averments  made
in the petition must, in the absence of any counter from the respondent,  be
taken to be correct at least  for  the  purposes  of  deciding  whether  the
matter ought to be referred to an Arbitrator.  This is  especially  so  when
the averments are supported by an affidavit filed  by  the  petitioner.   In
that  view,  therefore,  we  see  no  reason  to  decline  the  prayer   for
appointment of an Arbitrator  made  by  the  petitioner.   We,  accordingly,
appoint Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.S. Bedi, former Judge of the Supreme Court  of
India as the sole Arbitrator to  adjudicate  upon  the  disputes  that  have
arisen between the parties.  The  Arbitrator  shall  issue  notices  to  the
parties in connection with the arbitral proceedings.  He  is  left  free  to
determine his fee. We make it clear that we have  expressed  no  opinion  on
the merits of the case which aspect is left open for  the  parties  to  urge
before the worthy Arbitrator.  No costs.



.…………….……………….CJI
            [T.S. Thakur]


..…………………….………….J.
            [R. Banumathi]



...………………..…….……….J.
            [Uday Umesh Lalit]
New Delhi;
March 30, 2016

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.