Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + SC Companies Law - 2001 (7) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2001 (7) TMI 1171 - SC - Companies LawWhether the arbitration clause in the present case, stipulates appointment of third arbitrator as in sub-section (1) or his appointment could be said to be otherwise than as mentioned under sub-section (1) in terms of sub-section (2)? Held that:- Appeal dismissed. In view of the finding, the ancillary question raised through letter dated 28-12-1998 by the counsel for the appellant, regarding appointment of a fresh Chairman after the appointment of Mr. Justice H.L. Anand has no merit for acceptance. If the Tribunal consisted of three member, as we have interpreted it so as to fall under sub-section (2) of section 10, then even if one of the arbitrators nominated by the party is incapacitated or dies and is later substituted, would not give fresh right to such two arbitrators appointed by the parties, to appoint a fresh Chairman. Appointed Chairman by the said two arbitrators does not fall because of the substitution of one of the nominated arbitrators on account of death or incapacitation of one of the such nominated arbitrator. We may record here, Justice H.L. Anand opinion about the validity of the Arbitral Tribunal consisting of three members, in view of section 10(1), did require consideration. However, in view of the findings recorded by us this controversy stands settled. No hesitation to uphold the impugned judgment and the order of the High Court which holds Arbitral Tribunal consists of three members Justice Avadh Behari Rohatgi to be the Chairman along with Mr. Justice H.L. Anand (Retd.) and Mr. C.S. Aggarwal, Advocate as other two members
|