9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1009X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstant case. Admittedly, it is the provision of the Contract that in case the claim exceeds Rs. 5 crores, the Tribunal would be constituted by three members and unless and until the Arbitral Tribunal is constituted, the question of commencement will not arise at all. With regard to application of Section 11 (6) of the Act in making a challenge of the present nature, the learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD. VERSUS STERLITE TECHNOLOGIES LTD. [ 2015 (9) TMI 866 - SUPREME COURT] . However, on a reading of the said decision, this Court is of the opinion that the same would not have any application in the present case. Rather, on reading of the contents of paragraph ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en the parties. It has also been stated in the said notice that since the claim exceeds Rs. 5 crores, a nominee was appointed by the claimant. It is pointed out that a copy of the notice was also marked to the said nominee and therefore, it has been projected on behalf of the petitioner that prior consent from the same nominee was apparently taken by the claimant. Responding to the said notice, the present petitioner had issued a communication dated 19.08.2023 to the nominee Arbitrator on behalf of the petitioner. The controversy has started from a subsequent communication issued by the respondent dated 12.10.2023 whereby, the nominee earlier appointed by the respondent- claimant was changed and another nominee was appointed. The same was f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he shall proceed de novo. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court had put a specific query as to whether a petition under Section 11 (6) of the Act would be maintainable. This Court had further wanted to have a look at the order/communication of appointment of the Presiding Arbitrator which presupposes that the nominee Arbitrator of both the parties in dispute have agreed upon the said appointment. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner is not in possession of such order. 7. Therefore, this Court proceeds with the presumption that there is a consent by the nominee Arbitrators of both the parties towards the appointment of the Presiding Arbitrator in absence of which such Presiding Arbitrator wil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
