Update 19.10.2018

Arbitration and Conciliation Act (26 of 1996), S.11(5) - Appointment of arbitrator - Cl. 15 of agreement states that the disputes should be settled through consultation and if the consultation fails by treatment of to the arbitration body for arbitration or the court  -  "15. Dispute handling : Common processing contract disputes, the parties should be settled through consultation; consultation fails by treatment of to the arbitration body for arbitration or the court" – Intention of the parties, as it flows from the clause, is that efforts have to be made to settle the disputes in an amicable manner and, therefore, two options are available, either to go for arbitration or for litigation in a court of law -  Thus, there is an option and the petitioner has invoked the arbitration clause -  Matter referred to arbitration. (2018)2 SCeJ 1503


  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) S. 11 - Defendant in the application vehemently resisted and opposed the appointment of arbitrator, inter-alia, on the ground that the impugned lease agreement between the parties was under stamped, was not enforceable and raised objection in regard to the appointment of sole arbitrator - The petition came to be decided by  Hon'ble High Court - Now Defendants are estopped from now claiming that the matter be referred to the arbitrator and plaint of plaintiffs be returned/rejected in this relevant connection - They cannot possibly be permitted to blow hot and cold in the same breath. (174) P.L.R.
  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) - Section 11(5)  - Only if the parties fail to agree to appoint an arbitrator within 30 days from the receipt of a request made by one party to the other, then and only then, Section 11 of the Act can be invoked seeking a direction at the hands of the High Court, to appoint an Arbitrator -  Section 2(1)(a) of the Act, leaves no room for any doubt, that the term party expressed in Section 11(5) of the Act is referable to a party to an arbitration agreement - No such request had been made by respondent for the appointment of an arbitrator, to the appellants, for the settlement of their contractual dispute  No document was brought to notice indicating that respondent had ever approached the appellants requiring the appellants to agree to the appointment of an arbitrator, for the settlement of their monetary disputes, emerging out of their contractual relationship - Respondent approached the Indian Newspaper Society for settling the dispute - Chairman of the INS advised the parties to have their dispute amicably settled through arbitration - Since parties could not agree to settle their dispute by way of arbitration, the respondent approached the High Court under Section 11 for appointment fo arbitrator - High Court appointed a sole arbitrator -  Set aside. (2016)3 P.L.R.SC 450
  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) S. 11(6) - Once the judicial authority takes a decision not to refer the parties to arbitration, and the said decision having become final, thereafter Section 11(6) route before the Chief Justice is not available to either party. (S.C.)(180) P.L.R.
  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act (26 of 1996), S.11(5) - Appointment of arbitrator - Cl. 15 of agreement states that the disputes should be settled through consultation and if the consultation fails by treatment of to the arbitration body for arbitration or the court  -  "15. Dispute handling : Common processing contract disputes, the parties should be settled through consultation; consultation fails by treatment of to the arbitration body for arbitration or the court" – Intention of the parties, as it flows from the clause, is that efforts have to be made to settle the disputes in an amicable manner and, therefore, two options are available, either to go for arbitration or for litigation in a court of law -  Thus, there is an option and the petitioner has invoked the arbitration clause -  Matter referred to arbitration. (2018)2 SCeJ 1503