Dsc Ventures Pvt Ltd. V. Ministry of Road Transport on 20th June 2020
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The case starts when both the petitioner and respondent enter into an agreement of concession on May 8th, 2003. Further in the agreement contains an arbitration clause which states that if a dispute arises in the future three-member containing an arbitral tribunal will be formed only if an effort to resolve the dispute by the settlement has failed. The arbitral tribunal will have an arbitrator appointed by the petitioner and an arbitrator appointed by the respondent and the third arbitrator will be appointed by both the appointed arbitrators together.
When the petitioner and the respondent were not able to settle, the petitioner on May 18th, 2010, and the respondent on 22nd April 2014 appoints arbitrators respectively. The petitioner appointed Mr. B.P. Bhattacharya and respondent appointed Mr. S.C. Sharma as their arbitrators. They both appointed a presiding arbitrator G. Sharan on 30th May 2014.
on 30th June 2014, the arbitral tribunal commenced hearing. on August, 25th 2014 the petitioner filed a Statement of claim. on January 14th, 2015 the respondent filed a statement of defense. After that, on March 10th, 2016 amended statement of claim was filed by the petitioner. on 25th July 2016, an amended statement of defense was filed. Witness's cross-examination and examination were completed.
on January 23rd, 2018, due to health reasons Mr. B.P. Bhattacharya resigned. N.K. Mody was appointed as an arbitrator. The cross-examination was concluded by 2nd April 2018 and arguments of both the parties were concluded by 12th April 2019.
before the announcement of the award arbitrator of the respondent, Mr. S.C. Sharma passes away. Mr. G. Sharan and Justice N.K. Mody told the respondent to appoint an arbitrator. The respondent had thirty days to appoint an arbitrator, when thirty days expired the petitioner moves to court to ask the court to appoint an arbitrator according to article 11(6).
Meantime the respondent on 8th June 2020 appointed Mr. Manoj Kumar as an arbitrator.
ISSUE OF THE CASE:
The issue, in this case, was whether the opposite party can, after the expiry of 30 days from the date of demand appoint an arbitrator?
JUDGMENT OF THE CASE:
In this case, the court saw that the respondent appointed an arbitrator after the expiry of thirty days under section 11, that is, the application was filed by the appellant it was after the expiry of thirty days under section 11(6). So, the court held that the appointment of the arbitrator was valid and it cannot be said that the right was forfeited after the expiry of 30 days from the date of demand.
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.