9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1071X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the clause would be to understand the reference to “Singapore Chamber of Commerce” as to the “SIAC” - the respondents at one time had suggested the name of a retired judge of the Supreme Court of India as the sole Arbitrator, which was not agreed to by the petitioner, who in turn, was inclined to nominate another learned judge. Be that as it may, in such a situation, the respondents by invoking Arbitration clause 30.2 had approached SIAC for appointment of an Arbitrator - This was on 5th September, 2014 i.e. before the present proceeding was instituted by the petitioner. Though the notice of the request was served on the petitioner on 11th September, 2014, no steps were taken by the petitioner to pre-empt the appointment of a sole Ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been sought by means of the present application. 2. There is no dispute between the parties with regard to the existence of the JVA and/or with regard to the fact that disputes and differences over the respective rights and liabilities of the parties under the JVA have surfaced. The Arbitration clause under the JVA is in the following terms: ARTICLE 30 ARBITRATION 30.1 If any dispute arises between any of the Parties hereto during the subsistence or thereafter, in connection with the validity, interpretation, implementation or alleged material breach of any provision of this JVA or regarding any question, including the qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty shall be entitled to equitable relief by way of interim injunction or specific performance by recourse to courts/judicial forum with appropriate jurisdiction. ARTICLE 31 GOVERNING LAW 31.1 This JVA shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of India. 3. There are certain facts and events which have occurred during the pendency of the present proceeding which must immediately be taken note of. 4. The parties are not in dispute that the Singapore Chamber of Commerce mentioned in clause 30.2 of the JVA is not an Arbitration Institution having any Rules for appointment of Arbitrators. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t under clause 31.1, the rights of the parties under the JVA is to be governed by the laws of India. Therefore, in the absence of any contrary intention, even the arbitration agreement will be governed by Indian Law i.e. the Act of 1996. Clause 30.3 by which the parties had agreed that arbitration proceedings shall be held at Singapore has to be consequently construed to mean that the seat of Arbitration continues to be India and Singapore is only the venue of the hearings to be conducted in the Arbitration proceedings. On the said basis, it is contended that the present application under Section 11(6) of the Act would justify appropriate orders from the Court. It is also argued that the parties to the JVA have not excluded the applicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t made does not suffer from any infirmity. It is claimed that the Singapore Chamber of Commerce , not being an Arbitration Institution, the real intention of the parties in clause 30.2 was to approach the SIAC for appointment of an Arbitrator in the event of the failure of a mutual agreement on this score. This has been so done by the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents has also taken the Court to the past history of the dispute between the parties commencing with the grant of interim measures by the Civil Court at Coimbatore under Section 9 of the Act and the failure on the part of the petitioner to agree to the appointment of a retired judge of the Supreme Court of India as the sole Arbitrator. The said facts have been point ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a as the sole Arbitrator, which was not agreed to by the petitioner, who in turn, was inclined to nominate another learned judge. Be that as it may, in such a situation, the respondents by invoking Arbitration clause 30.2 had approached SIAC for appointment of an Arbitrator. This was on 5th September, 2014 i.e. before the present proceeding was instituted by the petitioner. Though the notice of the said request was served on the petitioner on 11th September, 2014, no steps were taken by the petitioner to pre-empt the appointment of a sole Arbitrator by SIAC. Mr. Steven Y.H. Lim came to be appointed as the sole Arbitrator by the SIAC on 29th September, 2014. The petitioner has submitted to the jurisdiction of Mr. Steven Y.H. Lim. Even if it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
