2013(4)ALT26, 2013(2)ARBLR226(SC), 2013 5 AWC5140SC, 2013(5) CHN 65, [2013]115CLA1(SC), 2013(3)CTC674, 2013(3)J.L.J.R.155, JT2013(7)SC394, 2013-5-LW565, 2013(3)RCR(Civil)563, 2013(7)SCALE216, 2013(4)ABR176, 2013VI AD (S.C.) 215, 2013(3)AJR152, 2013 (99) ALR 507

In view of the language of Article 20 of the Arbitration Agreement which provided that the arbitration proceedings would be held in accordance with the rules and procedures of the International Chamber of Commerce or UNCITRAL, Devas was entitled to invoke the Rules of Arbitration of the ICC for the conduct of the arbitration proceedings. Article 19 of the Agreement provided that the rights and responsibilities of the parties there under would be subject to and construed in accordance with the laws of India. There is, therefore, a clear distinction between the law which was to operate as the governing law of the Agreement and the law which was to govern the arbitration proceedings. Once the provisions of the ICC Rules of Arbitration had been invoked by Devas, Page 37the proceedings initiated there under could not be interfered with in a proceeding under Section 11 of the 1996 Act. The invocation of the ICC Rules would, of course, be subject to challenge in appropriate proceedings but not by way of an application under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act. Where the parties had agreed that the procedure for the arbitration would be governed by the ICC Rules, the same would necessarily include the appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal in terms of the Arbitration Agreement and the said Rules. Arbitration Petition No.20 of 2011 under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act for the appointment of an Arbitrator must, therefore, fail and is rejected, but this will not prevent the Petitioner from taking recourse to other provisions of the aforesaid Act for appropriate relief.