2018 (7) TMI 2112 - HC - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Appointment of a sole Arbitrator - Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - HELD THAT - Admittedly Arbitration was invoked by the Applicant by their letter dated 12 th December, 2017. Though the parties have agreed in Clause IX of the Agreement dated 20th February, 2014 that if any dispute or differences arising between them, the same shall be referred to arbitration by three Arbitrators, parties have agreed before this Court and have submitted that the dispute be referred to a sole Arbitrator - Mr. Arif Doctor, Advocate is appointed as the sole Arbitrator to decide the disputes between the parties arising out of the Agreement dated 20th February, 2014. Arbitration Application is disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. Interpretation of Clause (IX) of the Agreement dated 20th February, 2014 regarding arbitration process.
3. Decision on the venue of arbitration and related procedural aspects.

Analysis:
1. The Applicant filed an Arbitration Application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a sole Arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from an Agreement dated 20th February, 2014. Despite the Agreement specifying arbitration by three arbitrators, both parties agreed before the Court to refer the dispute to a sole Arbitrator. Consequently, Mr. Arif Doctor, Advocate, was appointed as the sole Arbitrator to decide the disputes between the parties.

2. The Agreement's Clause (IX) outlined the governing law and the arbitration process. It mandated that any disputes shall be referred to arbitration by three arbitrators in Mumbai, India, in accordance with the Indian Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. However, the parties mutually agreed to deviate from this provision and opt for a sole Arbitrator instead. This decision was accepted by the Court, and the venue of arbitration was confirmed to be in Mumbai.

3. The Court issued various directions regarding the arbitration proceedings. It required the parties and their Advocates to appear before the Arbitrator on a specified date for necessary directions. Additionally, the Court emphasized that adjournments would not be granted unless absolutely necessary. The initial cost of arbitration was to be shared equally by the parties, and all contentions were kept open. Ultimately, the Arbitration Application was disposed of in light of the order appointing the sole Arbitrator and outlining the procedural aspects of the arbitration process.