Jmc Projects India Ltd vs Indure Private Limited
The Petitioner (JMC Project India Ltd.) entered into a work order with the respondent (Indure Private Ltd.) in September 2011. The respondent is a manufacturing company under the Desein Group.
The contract between the petitioner and respondent involved an arbitration clause which stated that the arbitration will take place before the Sole Arbitrator who will be nominated by the Chairman of Desein Pvt. Ltd., Mr. NP Gupta. A dispute arose between the petitioner and the respondent. The Petitioner issued a notice to call upon the nomination of an arbitrator under Mr. NP Gupta as per the arbitration clause on July 1, 2016. Following this on July 26, 2016, Mr. N.P. Gupta nominated a retired judge of Delhi High Court as the sole arbitrator. Statement of Claim was filed by the petitioner on November 11, 2016. The proceedings continued and involved two extension requests by the petitioner for filing of an affidavit of evidence. The petitioner filed the evidence finally on January 27, 2011. An application was filed by the petitioner before the court under Section 14(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking termination of the mandate of the arbitrator.
The Court held that under Section 12(5) of the Act, the sole arbitrator nominated by Mr. N.P. Gupta was rendered de jure incapable of continuing to function as arbitrator within the scope of Section 14(1)(a) of the Act. The court relied on the decision in TRF Ltd. v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd. where the court ruled that an arbitration clause authorizing the Managing Director of the Corporation to act as a sole arbitrator or appoint a nominee. The Court further ruled that the Managing Director of the Corporation was incapable by the meaning under the Seventh Schedule. The Court further held that the sole arbitrator becomes ineligible as per the meaning under Section 12(5) of the act. The Court further held that the only means to be free of the restrictions of Section 12(5) was to have an express agreement in writing after disputes have arisen between the parties. The agreement should reflect mindfulness to the applicability of the said arrangement just as the resultant refutation of the authority to parley on the debates, just as a cognizant goal to forgo the applicability of Section 12(5). Therefore, the extension applications did not constitute an “agreement in writing” to forego the applicability of Section 12(5). The Court additionally dismissed the Respondent's contention that the request couldn't be documented straightforwardly in Court without making a test before the arbitrator himself. Concerning the issue of stamping, the Court held that this conflict was neither brought up in the arbitration proceedings nor in the Respondent's answer to the petition before the Court. The Court shunned making any finding on the issue.
This Article Does Not Intend To Hurt The Sentiments Of Any Individual Community, Sect, Or Religion Etcetera. This Article Is Based Purely On The Authors Personal Views And Opinions In The Exercise Of The Fundamental Right Guaranteed Under Article 19(1)(A) And Other Related Laws Being Force In India, For The Time Being.