The Supreme Court has sent to larger bench the issue as to whether an ineligible person appointed as Arbitrartor at first place can further appoint another Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The three-judge bench comprising of Justice U.U. Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia also noted that since the issue has been re-occurring, we may observe that it would be in the fitness of things that the question is resolved at an early date
In the present matter the correctness of the decision in CENTRAL ORGANISATION FOR RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION vs. M/S ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A JOINT VENTURE COMPANY, 2019 Latest Caselaw 1281 SC based on which the appointment of the Arbitrator was made and the matter had proceeded before the Arbitrator, was doubted by a subsequent Bench of three Judges.
The basic issue involved in the instant matter thus was whether the appointment of the Arbitrator was in conformity with the law laid down by this Court in TRF Ltd vs Energo Engineering Projects Ltd, 2017 Latest Caselaw 918 SC and, PERKINS EASTMAN ARCHITECTS DPC vs. HSCC (INDIA) LIMITED, 2019 Latest Caselaw 1154 SC
The High Court has gone by the decision rendered by a Bench of three-Judges of this Court in CENTRAL ORGANISATION FOR RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION (supra) which decision had distinguished the applicability of TRF Ltd (supra) and PERKINS EASTMAN ARCHITECTS DPC (supra) to the fact situation involved therein.
It had been brought to Court's notice that subsequently, a Bench of three-Judges of this Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Tantia Construction Pvt. Ltd., 2011 Latest Caselaw 319 SC vide its order dated 11.01.2021, prima facie expressed its disagreement with the view taken in CENTRAL ORGANISATION FOR RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION (supra) and requested the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India to constitute a larger Bench to look into the correctness of the decision in CENTRAL ORGANISATION FOR RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION (supra).
Read Order @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
