In the totality of the above circumstances, I have no  doubt that a legally valid contract had indeed come into existence between the parties which contained an arbitration clause for adjudication of disputes that may arise between them. Ques..

In the totality of the above circumstances, I have no  doubt that a legally valid contract had indeed come into existence between the parties which contained an arbitration clause for adjudication of disputes that may arise between them. Question No.(2) is accordingly answered in the affirmative.In the result, I allow this petition and appoint Mr. Justice Anil Dev Singh, former Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court as sole Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes between the parties arising out of the contract referred to in the petition. The Arbitrator shall be free to fix his fee and charges and the ratio in which the same shall be paid by the parties. The parties shall appear before the Arbitrator on 10th 21December, 2010 for further directions. Registry shall forthwith forward a copy of this order to the worthy Arbitrator for information and necessary action. 

Arbitration and Concilation Act, 1996

Whether the award will be set aside or not is a different question and that has to be decided by the appropriate Court. In this appeal, this Court is concerned only with the question whether by allowing the amendment, as prayed for by the appellan..

Whether the award will be set aside or not is a different question and that has to be decided by the appropriate Court. In this appeal, this Court is concerned only with the question whether by allowing the amendment, as prayed for by the appellant, the Court will allow material facts to be brought on record in the pending setting aside proceeding.  Judging the case from this angle, this Court is of the opinion that in the interest of justice and considering the fairness of procedure, the Court should allow the appellant to bring those materials on record as those materials are not wholly irrelevant or they may have a bearing on the appellant’s plea for setting aside the award.  Nothing said in this judgment will be construed as even remotely expressing any opinion on the legality 29of the award. That question will be decided by the Court where setting aside proceeding is pending. The proceeding for setting aside the award may be disposed of as early as possible, preferably within 4 months. For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal succeeds. The order of the High Court is set aside and that of the court below is restored. No order as to costs.

Arbitration and Concilation Act, 1996

In light of the discussions made above we find the impugned order of the Bombay High Court unsustainable. The High Court was clearly in error not correctly following the decision of this Court in Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors and in tak..

In light of the discussions made above we find the impugned order of the Bombay High Court unsustainable. The High Court was clearly in error not correctly following the decision of this Court in Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors and in taking a contrary view. The High Court overlooked that what section 31(5) contemplates is not merely the delivery of any kind of a copy of the award but a copy of the award that is duly signed by the members of the arbitral tribunal. In the facts of the case the appellants would appear to be deriving undue advantage due to the omission of the arbitrator to give them a signed copy of the award coupled with the supply of a copy of the award to them by the claimant-respondent but that would not change the legal position and it would be wrong to tailor the law according to the facts of a particular case. In the light of the discussion made above this appeal must succeed. We, accordingly, set aside the judgments and orders passed by the Bombay High Court and the Principal District Judge, Latur. The application made by the appellants under section 34 of the Act is restored before the Principal District Judge, Latur, who shall now proceed to hear the parties on merits and pass an order on the application in accordance with law. Since the 1matter is quite old, it is hoped and expected that the Principal District Judgewill dispose this matter preferably within 6 months from the date of receipt of this order. 

In my considered view, the dispute has arisen between the parties and it needs to be adjudicated and decided by an Arbitrator. Consequently, I request Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Variava, a former Judge of this court to accept this Arbitration ..

In my considered view, the dispute has arisen between the parties and it needs to be adjudicated and decided by an Arbitrator. Consequently, I request Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Variava, a former Judge of this court to accept this Arbitration and adjudicate and decide the dispute which has arisen 10between the parties. The learned Arbitrator would be free to decide about his fee. This arbitration petition is accordingly disposed of with the direction to the parties to appear before Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Variava, a former Judge of this court at 11 a.m. on 27th July, 2009 at Mumbai.  The Registry is directed to immediately communicate this order to the learned arbitrator to enable him to decide the arbitration matter as expeditiously as practicable.  Consequently, this arbitration petition is allowed and disposed of. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs.

Arbitration and Concilation Act, 1996

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 t..

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.

At this stage, normally the matter ought to be remitted back to the two arbitrators appointed by 67Page 68 the parties to choose the third arbitrator on the basis of the observations made in the judgment. However, given the sharp difference o..

At this stage, normally the matter ought to be remitted back to the two arbitrators appointed by 67Page 68 the parties to choose the third arbitrator on the basis of the observations made in the judgment. However, given the sharp difference of opinion between the two arbitrators, I deem it appropriate to perform the task of appointing the third arbitrator in this Court itself. Therefore, I had requested the learned senior counsel for the parties to supply a list of eminent individuals one of whom could be appointed as the third arbitrator. Although two lists have been duly supplied by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it would be appropriate if an individual not named by any of the parties is appointed as the third arbitrator. I have discretely conducted a survey to find a suitable third arbitrator who is not a National of any of the parties involved in the dispute. Upon due consideration, I hereby appoint Honourable James Spigelman AC QC, former Chief Justice and Lieutenant Governor of New South Wales, Australia as the third Arbitrator who shall act as the Chairman of the Arbitral Tribunal.

Arbitration and Concilation Act, 1996

Held, it was not disputed that there was a legal relationship between the parties of a long standing - Section 44 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1996 applies to arbitral awards of differences between persons arising out of legal proceedings - Such..

Held, it was not disputed that there was a legal relationship between the parties of a long standing - Section 44 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1996 applies to arbitral awards of differences between persons arising out of legal proceedings - Such a relationship may be contractual or not, so long it is considered as commercial under the laws in force in India - Further, that legal relationship must be in pursuance of an agreement, in writing, for arbitration, to which the New York Convention applies - Court can decline to make a reference to arbitration in case it finds that the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed - There were no pleadings to that effect in the plaint - Daman Trial Court findings that the contract was null and void and not based on free consent were rendered in the absence of relevant pleadings - Before the present Court it was not pleaded that the arbitration agreement was without free consent, or had been procured by coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or was signed under a mistake - In other words, it was not claimed that the agreement was null and void, inoperative and incapable of being performed as it violated any of the provisions under Sections 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 19A and 20 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Submission was that the matter cannot be referred to arbitration as the IPLA, containing the arbitration clause/agreement, was not a concluded contract - This would not fall within the parameters of an agreement being "null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed", in terms of Sections 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 - These provisions set out the impediments, infirmities or eventualities that would render a particular provision of a contract or the whole contract void or voidable -