M/S G.R. Builders v. M/S Metro Speciality Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. And Another
!"#$%"&'('#)* + ,+
* -.+ //0/.
1"(")! !"
#
#
%
#
%
&&&& /0/.2 +
. 3 '
$
#
% (
"
# ) '#
+ $% %
'',-.
'',/.%
0
#'11-,% 2
3.
% % "
0
%4 " 5" 0 #(77+#
0 %
5
% %
"
$
8 0
%
"
%
'17+(7('# '#
$)%2 0
6 '-9 #:
" #30
"
$)$
$
% %
#"
%
)
6
% 6"
((''(7((# +#
6
6
6
# % +#87#7;#7-/9"
#
$
#
6
7;78(7(+#
<# ) 6
0 +''8 +''- %
!=#
'# > 6% %
4 %
0 %?
7<-(7(+#
-#
4 @ 66$ # %
0 #$ %
#$
"
6 5
#
; % 6 %
# %
"5
'(7-(7(+# 1#
0 %?
6 6
6
# '#
%
6
#$
6$
6 6
"
6
%
#
%
*
4 #(7(8 < A # "
"
@'"%
6 $
"
"
#
% " %
"
= "
"
"
= "
%
"
$
> %
%
# "
'-%
> 6
5
#$
$
6
%
)
$ $
%
$)
$)
%
$)
6
"
!== "
%
"6
%
:="
6@7(81
'<71(7(+ "
';#:
"
'(79# 87/#8(7#8-;#8-/#8;'=06
# $
%
0
# %
5
#$
)
- =
%
"
#"
*
6 ;
* %
# '
"
$
6"
6
%
"%
6
0 %?
#$
$
6$
%
$B
6
$
'-%
$%
"5
'(7-(7(+# 1# %
0
5
B
#
>
5
%
%
%
#
%
%
5
"
% / =%
% %
#
# <#$
"
)
"
';%
#
<#
! !
"
! # !
$ %! & ! '
!
! ( )
! ! ! ! !
!!
'
! '
! "
!
!! !
*! "
!
! !! ! ! ! !
!
! !!
! + 1 = %
"
% 4
0 % ?
$ #
% %
0 B
0
%
"
"
$
%
"
# ;#
0 %?
6 # $
"
" %
0
!
" #$%&'( ) /77#$
"9. While it is correct that in Antrix (supra) and Pricol Ltd. (supra), it was opined by this Court that after appointment of an arbitrator is made, the remedy of the aggrieved party is not under Section 11(6) but such remedy lies elsewhere and under different provisions of the Arbitration Act (Sections 12 and 13), the context in which the aforesaid view was expressed cannot be lost sight of. In Antrix (supra), appointment of the arbitrator, as per the ICC
Rules, was as per the alternative procedure agreed upon, whereas in Pricol Ltd. (supra), the party which had filed the application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act had already submitted to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. In the present case, the situation is otherwise.
10. Unless the appointment of the arbitrator is ex facie valid and such appointment satisfies the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, acceptance of such appointment as a fait accompli to debar the jurisdiction under Section 11(6) cannot be countenanced in law. In the present case, the agreed upon procedure between the parties contemplated the appointment of the arbitrator by the second party within 30 days of receipt of a notice from the first party. While the decision in Datar Switchgears Ltd. (supra) may have introduced some flexibility in the time frame agreed upon by the parties by extending it till a point of time anterior to the filing of the application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, it cannot be lost sight of that in the present case the appointment of Shri Justice A.D.
Mane is clearly contrary to the provisions of the Rules governing the appointment of arbitrators by ICADR, which the parties had agreed to abide by in the matter of such appointment. The option given to the respondent Corporation to go beyond the panel submitted by ICADR and to appoint any person of its choice was clearly not in the contemplation of the parties.
, A.D. Mane is non est in law. Such an appointment, therefore, will not inhibit the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act. It cannot, therefore, be held that the present proceeding is not maintainable in law. The appointment of Shri Justice A.D. Mane made beyond 30 days of the receipt of notice by the petitioner, though may appear to be in conformity with the law laid down in Datar Switchgears Ltd.(supra), is clearly contrary to the agreed procedure which required the appointment made by the respondent Corporation to be from the panel submitted by ICADR. The said appointment, therefore, is clearly invalid in law.
'7
>
5
%
%
$ $
%
# "
$
=
") #
'',-.
"
"
'' %
6
6
"6 "
# $
"
0 %
6$
%
$%
0
!=# '= * +
* $%&% #$%&,( - -..# *0
)
"
6
B " "
6
3 B
6
"
%
$
"
'( :
% 6 6 #
$
4 , . 5B $ #% 4
0 #@+7+/# ('9?#0
6 C9/#B
:
#
)D* # @ $?
# 1;/777/'8' >
"
$
# "5
% >
'+
"
#
"
% *
6
>
6:
" '8
$
"
'< @
> 6"
$
$
%
6# "
"
"
6
'-
>
"
4 , . 5B $
6$ %
';
6
# %#
% /0/.
+ ,+ 1'4 56"!6"11" (#)"%7(8" 9'): * "(7# 56"!6"11"8#1! ;<"
* "(7#