Petitioner challenged appointment of Arbitrator by State post-court jurisdiction invocation citing Datar Switchgears. Court held agreement to appoint via Chief Administrator prevails and rejected petition for different arbitrator.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Arbitration Case No.108 of 2011 -1-
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
Arbitration Case No.108 of 2011
Date of decision : 17.2.2012
Vipin Malik
..Petitioner.
Vs.
State of Haryana and others
..Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
Present : Mr. Vaibhav Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 5. Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Addl.AG Haryana.
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
The petitioner has sought appointment of an Arbitrator in respect of dispute arising out of agreement dated 30.4.2008. In terms of the notice served by the petitioner on 30.3.2011 (Annexure A-13), the respondent appointed an Arbitrator on 29.8.2011.
The present petition for appointment of an Arbitrator was filed on 17.5.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that since Arbitrator was appointed after invocation of the jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, the respondents are precluded from appointing an Arbitrator in terms of judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Datar Switchgears Ltd. Vs. Tata Finance Ltd. and another (2000) 8 SCC 151.
The Arbitration Clause contemplates adjudication of dispute by an Arbitrator to be appointed by Chief Administrator. Since the parties have agreed for appointment of an Arbitrator by Chief Administrator, the fact that
Arbitration Case No.108 of 2011 -2-
respondent has appointed Arbitrator after invocation of the jurisdiction of this Court per se will not entitle the petitioner for appointment of a different Arbitrator then what was agreed by the petitioner. There is no allegation against Sh.D.K.Garg, Superintending Engineer, who has been appointed as an Arbitrator. Therefore, there is no reason as to why the terms agreed at the time of agreement are not adhere to.
I do not find any merit in the present petition. Dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA) 17.2.2012 JUDGE Meenu
3 issues framed by the court
Whether respondents are precluded from appointing an Arbitrator after the court invoked its jurisdiction forfeiting the petitioner's right to appointment under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act.
Whether appointment of an Arbitrator by Chief Administrator as per the agreement binds parties despite subsequent jurisdiction invocation.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a different Arbitrator than the one agreed upon in the arbitration clause.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Datar Switchgears Ltd. Vs. Tata Finance Ltd. and anotherDistinguished¶14
Datar Switchgears Ltd. Vs. Tata Finance Ltd. and another (2000) 8 SCC 151 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Vipin Malik
State of Haryana
HEMANT GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
