Skip to main content

Mere Delay In Passing The Award By Itself Cannot Be The Ground To Appoint Another Arbitrator

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1039 OF 2019, Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation Limited vs M/s Ganesh Containers Movers Syndicate, appeal was filed before the Supreme Court against the decision of the High Court to appoint appointment of an independent arbitrator as requested by the defendant citing enormous delay in the arbitration process and the existing arbitrator hurried up to conclude the proceedings with a view to frustrate the arbitration application.

The Supreme Court quoted from RUSSELL ON ARBITRATION, 20th Edition which reads as under:-
“Mere neglect of an arbitrator to act, as distinct from refusal or incapacity, does not of itself give the court power to appoint another arbitrator in his place. It does, however, give the court power to remove him, whereupon there is a power to replace him.”

The Supreme Court held that Section 15 deals with termination of the mandate and substitution of an arbitrator. Sub-section (1) of Section 15 states that in addition to the circumstances referred to in Sections 13 and 14 of the Act, the mandate of an arbitrator shall terminate where he withdraws from office for any reason or by pursuant to the agreement of the parties. In terms of sub-section (2), after termination of arbitrator’s mandate, the appointment of the substitute arbitrator shall be in accordance with the rules applicable to the appointment of an arbitrator who is being replaced. After analysis of the scheme of Sections 11, 14 and 15, in S.B.P. and Company v. Patel Engineering Limited and Another, this Court held that the legislature has repeatedly laid emphasis on the necessity of adherence to the terms of agreement between the parties in the matter of appointment of arbitrators and procedure to be followed for such appointment.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more