Friday 6 June 2014

Whether Chief Justice or his designate are required to identify disputes or specifically refer them to arbitrator for adjudication?



S. 11 - Appointment of arbitrator - Identification and reference of disputes/claims/counterclaims to arbitrator by Chief
Justice or his designate - Held, Chief Justice or his designate are neither required to identify disputes nor specifically
refer them to arbitrator for adjudication - However, Chief Justice or his designate may take necessary measures by
directing appointing authority to formulate disputes/claims/counterclaims for reference as required by arbitration
agreement if he fails to do so,

State of Goa v. Praveen Enterprises, (2012) 12 SCC 581


Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Ss. 2(9), 8, 11, 16, 21 and 23 - Counterclaims - Jurisdiction of arbitrator - Situation A: all disputes referred, or, Situation
B: specific disputes enumerated as such referred to arbitration - Distinction Situation A and Situation B - Prior notice for
consent of claimant to raising of counterclaims, or, setting out counterclaims in reply to application under S. 11 for
appointment of arbitrator - When required - Held, such prior notice or reply is not required when all disputes are referred
to arbitrator/contemplated by arbitration clause - Arbitrator is empowered to decide all disputes raised in pleadings (both
claims and counterclaims) if all disputes are referred - Assumption that arbitrator can decide only disputes raised by
applicant in S. 11 application and not counterclaims of respondent is without basis - However, where specific disputes
enumerated by parties/court/appointing authority alone are referred/contemplated by arbitration clause, arbitrator's
jurisdiction is circumscribed by said specific reference and he cannot entertain any additional claims or counterclaims
which were not part of disputes specifically referred to arbitration - Arbitration clause in present case contemplates all
disputes being referred to arbitration by a sole arbitrator and does not bar arbitrator from deciding any counterclaims - In
the absence of agreement to the contrary, it has to be held that counterclaims raised by appellant were maintainable and
arbitrable having regard to S. 23 r/w S. 2(9) - Rs 2,94,298 was awarded by arbitrator in respect of Counterclaim (3),
which had been disallowed by courts below - Since all disputes were referred to arbitrator, award of arbitrator upheld in
its entirety including award on said counterclaim and challenge thereto by respondent rejected, 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Ss. 2(9), 7, 8, 11 and 23 - Modification/Additional claims - Maintainability - Held, claimant is not bound to restrict his
statement of claim to claims already raised by him in notice - Unless arbitration agreement refers to specific disputes,
both claimant and respondent are entitled to make any claims or counterclaims and are also entitled to add or amend
claims and counterclaims provided they are arbitrable and within limitation, 

Ss. 2(9), 8, 11, 16, 21 and 23 - Counterclaims - Raising of, by respondent - Options that are available - Held,
respondent has choice of raising dispute by way of counterclaim in pending arbitration proceedings or resort to
independent arbitration proceedings by issuing notice to claimant, 
S. 11 - Appointment of arbitrator - Identification and reference of disputes/claims/counterclaims to arbitrator by Chief
Justice or his designate - Held, Chief Justice or his designate are neither required to identify disputes nor specifically
refer them to arbitrator for adjudication - However, Chief Justice or his designate may take necessary measures by
directing appointing authority to formulate disputes/claims/counterclaims for reference as required by arbitration
agreement if he fails to do so,
Ss. 11, 8 and 43 - Reference of disputes to arbitration - Limitation - Consideration by Chief Justice or his designate -
Chief Justice or his designate will not ordinarily consider issue of limitation - However, in appropriate cases, reiterated,
Chief Justice or his designate may consider whether an application was on face of it so hopelessly barred by time, that it
is already dead/stale claim which did not deserve to be resurrected and referred to arbitration,

Ss. 8 and 11 - Scope - Powers exercised by civil court under S. 8 and Chief Justice or his designate under S. 11 -
Contrasting nature of - Questions for consideration in an application under S. 8 by civil court are different from questions
for consideration under S. 11 - Judicial authority referring parties to arbitration" under S. 8 has no power to appoint
arbitrator - It may however record consent of parties to appoint an agreed upon arbitrator, 
Ss. 8 and 11 - Reference to arbitration - Meaning of - Held, reference to arbitration" can be: (i) in respect of reference of
disputes between parties to arbitration, or (ii) referring parties to arbitration, 
Ss. 8, 7 and 11 - Reference to arbitration - Ad hoc arbitration - What is - Explained, 
Ss. 21 and 43 and S. 3 of Limitation Act, 1963 - Commencement of arbitration proceedings - Date of - Held, purpose of
S. 21 is to determine date of commencement of arbitration proceedings for deciding whether claims are barred by
limitation or not - S. 21 supplies omission in S. 3 of 1963 Act to state date of institution or commencement of arbitration
proceedings - Any claim made beyond period of limitation prescribed by 1963 Act would be barred by limitation and
Arbitral Tribunal will have to reject such claims as barred by limitation, 
Ss. 21 and 43 and S. 23(3) - Additional claims - Limitation - Determination of relevant date for limitation - Held, relevant
date for limitation is date of notice issued seeking reference to arbitration - However, in case of additional claims, date of
amendment by which additional claim is sought to be introduced is relevant date, 
Ss. 21 & 43 and S. 3(2)(b) of Limitation Act, 1963 - Counterclaims - Limitation - Determination of relevant date for
limitation - Held, date on which counterclaim is made by respondent before arbitrator will be date of its institution" - S. 21
is not relevant for counterclaims, 

Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment