9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (3) TMI 653 - HC - Companies LawWhether the District Court has the power to appoint an Arbitrator or not? Held that - In view of the law laid down in SBP. & CO. Versus Patel Engineering Ltd. & Anr. 2005 (10) TMI 495 - SUPREME COURT as extracted above, and in the light of its conclusions, we are of the opinion that the Civil Revision Petition is maintainable and the District Court does not have the power to appoint the Arbitrator and as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Civil Revision Petition is allowed
Issues: Appointment of Arbitrator by District Court, Power of Chief Justice to designate a Judge for appointing an Arbitrator, Jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes in an Arbitration application.
Analysis: 1. The Civil Revision Petition challenged the order appointing an Arbitrator in a dispute between parties under an agreement. The first respondent claimed non-payment for supplied sand and rescinded the contract due to incomplete work. The first respondent sought appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which was allowed by the lower court, leading to this appeal by the petitioners. 2. The main contention raised was whether the District Court had the authority to appoint an Arbitrator or if such power rested with the Chief Justice. The Supreme Court's decision in S.B.P. and Co. v. Patel Engineering Limited was cited. The Supreme Court clarified that the Chief Justice of a High Court can delegate the function under Section 11(6) of the Act to a Judge of that court, emphasizing that the power to appoint an Arbitrator is a judicial power, not an administrative one. The Supreme Court held that the District Court does not possess the power to appoint an Arbitrator. 3. Based on the Supreme Court's ruling, the High Court opined that the Civil Revision Petition was maintainable. The High Court set aside the impugned order appointing the Arbitrator by the District Court, stating that the District Court lacked the jurisdiction to make such an appointment. Consequently, the High Court directed the transfer of the original petition to itself for disposal in accordance with the law, to be numbered as an Arbitration Application and listed before the relevant Bench for further proceedings.
|
