Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2013 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (4) TMI 279 - HC - Companies LawAppointment of arbitrator U/s 11(6) - Whether period of 30 days is mandatory or not - The respondent made the appointment before the appellant filed the application U/s 11 but the said appointment was made beyond 30 days - Held that:- The Hon'ble Chief Justice or his designate cannot decide under section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 as to whether the appointment of the arbitrator already made by the respondents in terms of the arbitration agreement is valid or illegal - The fact remains that the respondents have already appointed arbitrator, may be after expiry of thirty days of receipt of notice invoking arbitration clause by the applicants - The question as to whether such appointment is in terms of the agreed procedure prescribed in the arbitration clause or not. In my view touches the jurisdiction of the arbitrator which cannot be decided by the Hon'ble Chief Justice or his designate under section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, 1996 - Such issue of jurisdiction in respect of the arbitrator appointed by the respondents can be raised before the arbitrator himself by making application U/s 16 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - It is made clear that this court has not expressed any views as to whether the arbitrator appointed by the respondents is validly appointed or not and the said issue is kept open. No order for appointment of the arbitrator can be passed in this proceedings - The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms - It is made clear that other issues which touches the jurisdiction of the arbitrator already appointed by the respondents are also to be decided by the learned arbitrator under section 16 of the Act.
|