Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2018 (11) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 1229 - SC - Indian LawsProceeding amounting to arbitration or not - Appointment of an arbitrator - Whether Clause 16.3 which provides for an appeal really provides for an arbitration and therefore whether the High Court was entitled to appoint an Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act? Held that:- Arbitration has always been understood to mean the process by which a dispute is resolved by an arbitrator chosen or acceptable to both sides under an arbitration agreement between the two parties. In the present case, under Clause 16 of the Agreement only the party dissatisfied by the order of the Competent Officer can approach the Commissioner. It is, therefore, not possible to hold that the proceedings before the Commissioner constitutes as an arbitration. The present Clause 16 and in particular Clause 16.3 does not provide for the reference of any dispute that may arise between the parties to an Arbitrator. The purpose of this Clause is to vest the Competent Officer and the Commissioner with supervisory control over the execution of work and administrative control over it from time to time and thus to prevent disputes. The intention is not to provide for a forum for resolving disputes. Thus, in the present circumstances no Arbitrator could have been appointed by the High Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Appeal allowed.
|