2019 (8) TMI 1090 - SC - Indian Laws

Appointment of Arbitrator - Jurisdiction of Civil Court to decide the appointment of arbitrator, is null and void - acceptance of bid - conclusion of the contract - binding contract or not. HELD THAT - any objection with respect to existence or validity of the arbitration agreement, can be raised only by way of an application under Section 16 of the Act and Civil Court cannot have jurisdiction to go into such question. If the first respondent wants to raise an objection with regard to existence or validity of the arbitration agreement, it is open for the first respondent to move an application before the arbitrator, but with such plea, he cannot maintain a suit for declaration and injunction. Though the Trial Court rightly rejected the interim injunction sought for by the first respondent, the same is erroneously reversed by the learned Additional District Judge and such order is confirmed by the High Court, by the impugned order. At the same time, it is to be noted that when the first respondent has not responded to select one of the members as an arbitrator, from the panel, the appellant has appointed Sri C.R. Pradhan, former Chairman-cum- Managing Director of the company itself as an arbitrator, who has commenced arbitration proceedings. Having regard to the Fifth Schedule introduced, by Act 3 of 2016 to the Act, second respondent cannot be continued as an arbitrator, to adjudicate the lis between the parties. Appeal allowed.

Issues:
1. Validity of arbitration agreement based on acceptance of tender offer.
2. Jurisdiction of the arbitrator in dispute resolution.
3. Maintainability of a suit for declaration and injunction in the presence of an arbitration agreement.
4. Appointment and continuation of arbitrator as per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
5. Setting aside the impugned order and quashing the appointment of the arbitrator.

Issue 1: Validity of arbitration agreement based on acceptance of tender offer
The appellant, a government enterprise, issued a tender notice inviting bids for a construction project. The respondent submitted a bid which was accepted by the appellant. However, the respondent later expressed inability to proceed unless certain specifications were revised. The appellant claimed a financial loss due to this and invoked the arbitration clause. The respondent disputed the existence of a binding contract, leading to the appointment of an arbitrator. The court held that acceptance of the bid concluded a contract, making it an arbitration agreement under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the arbitrator in dispute resolution
The appellant contended that any objection to the arbitrator's jurisdiction should be raised under Section 16 of the Act. The respondent's suit seeking a declaration that the arbitrator's appointment was void was deemed not maintainable. Citing precedent, the court held that such objections should be raised before the arbitrator and not in a civil court. The Trial Court rightly rejected an interim injunction sought by the respondent, which was erroneously reversed by the Additional District Judge and confirmed by the High Court.

Issue 3: Maintainability of a suit for declaration and injunction in the presence of an arbitration agreement
The court emphasized that objections to the existence or validity of an arbitration agreement should be raised before the arbitrator under Section 16 of the Act. Filing a suit for declaration and injunction was deemed improper. The court set aside the injunction orders issued by the lower courts, as they were not in line with legal principles and previous judgments.

Issue 4: Appointment and continuation of arbitrator as per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
The court noted that the appointment of the arbitrator, a former Chairman of the appellant company, was not in accordance with the Act. Referring to the Fifth Schedule introduced in 2016, the court ruled that the arbitrator could not continue to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. Consequently, the court quashed the appointment of the arbitrator and appointed a former Judge of the Delhi High Court as the new arbitrator.

Issue 5: Setting aside the impugned order and quashing the appointment of the arbitrator
The court allowed the civil appeal, setting aside the order of the High Court. The appointment of the arbitrator was quashed, and a new arbitrator was appointed by the court. The parties consented to this decision, and the court directed the new arbitrator to determine his fees independently. The court also clarified the process for the respondent to dispute the arbitrator's jurisdiction in the future.

This detailed analysis of the judgment covers all the issues involved comprehensively, addressing each point with legal precision and referencing relevant sections of the law.

← Previous Next →