LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Swami Sadashiva Brahmendra Sar (Nil)     31 January 2010

Nature of power under s. 11, Arbitration Act

Whether power of the Chief Justice to appoint an arbitrator u/s 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is administrative one ? If so, whether a writ petition against an  order on a petition for appointing arbitrator can be filed on judicial side of the High Court ?



Learning

 8 Replies

Raj Kumar Makkad (Adv P & H High Court Chandigarh)     02 February 2010

Yes. Such power is entirely administrative and writ concerning this matter can be brought before High Court.

Rahul Gupta (Advocate)     02 February 2010

I think the Supreme Court has now settled the issue that the CJ's power is no more a administrative power but it is a judcial power and is appealable. I'm subject to correction.


(Guest)

Rahul - You are correct.

k.chandrasekharan (advocate)     20 March 2010

Rahul Gupta is right and I concur. The issue arose in Konkan Railway vs Rani Construction and the power was considered as administrative. But In State Bank Of Patiala, patel Engineering, ONGC, cases and a host of others subsequently, the law is now settled now that the order under Sec.11 of A & C act, is a judicial order and hence amenable for appellate provision only. Being an order by a single judge, appeal lies before a Division Bench of two judges. No further appeal is allowable except under Art.136 (1) of the Constitution to the supreme court by way of an SLP. Citation if required can be provided but available in any standard book on the Act.

Chanchal Nag Chowdhury (Advocate)     10 May 2010

My answer is an emphatic NO.  The ACA is a complete code. Writ U/A 226 of constitution does not lie.

Vineet (Director)     15 May 2010

I agree with Mr Rahul and other ld contributors above.

 

The 7 judge constitution bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Patel Engineering Case (2005) 8 SCC 618 (SC) have settled the position that the powers of Chief Justice acting u/s 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are judicial and thereby earlier 5 judge constitutional bench decision in Konkan Railway case (2002) 2 SCC 388 (SC) has been reversed. The final ratio of the decision is reproduced below:

46. We, therefore, sum up our conclusions as follows:

i) The power exercised by the Chief Justice of the High Court or the Chief Justice of India under Section 11(6) of the Act is not an administrative power. It is a judicial power.

ii) The power under Section 11(6) of the Act, in its entirety, could be delegated, by the Chief Justice of the High Court only to another judge of that court and by the Chief Justice of India to another judge of the Supreme Court.

(iii) In case of designation of a judge of the High Court or of the Supreme Court, the power that is exercised by the designated, judge would be that of the Chief Justice as conferred by the statute.

(iv) The Chief Justice or the designated judge will have the right to decide the preliminary aspects as indicated in the earlier part of this judgment. These will be, his own jurisdiction, to entertain the request, the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, the existence or otherwise of a live claim, the existence of the condition for the exercise of his power and on the qualifications of the arbitrator or arbitrators. The Chief Justice or the judge designated would be entitled to seek the opinion of an institution in the matter of nominating an arbitrator qualified in terms of Section 11(8) of the Act if the need arises but the order appointing the arbitrator could only be that of the Chief Justice or the judge designate.

(v) Designation of a district judge as the authority under Section 11(6) of the Act by the Chief Justice of the High Court is not warranted on the scheme of the Act.

(vi) Once the matter reaches the arbitral tribunal or the sole arbitrator, the High Court would not interfere with orders passed by the arbitrator or the arbitral tribunal during the course of the arbitration proceedings and the parties could approach the court only in terms of Section 37 of the Act or in terms of Section 34 of the Act.

(vii) Since an order passed by the Chief Justice of the High Court or by the designated judge of that court is a judicial order, an appeal will lie against that order only under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to the Supreme Court.

(viii) There can be no appeal against an order of the Chief Justice of India or a judge of the Supreme Court designated by him while entertaining an application under Section 11(6) of the Act.

(ix) In a case where an arbitral tribunal has been constituted by the parties without having recourse to Section 11(6) of the Act, the arbitral tribunal will have the jurisdiction to decide all matters as contemplated by Section 16 of the Act.

(x) Since all were guided by the decision of this Court in Konkan Railway Corpn. Ltd. & anr. Vs. Rani Construction Pvt. Ltd. [(2000) 8 SCC 159] and orders under Section 11(6) of the Act have been made based on the position adopted in that decision, we clarify that appointments of arbitrators or arbitral tribunals thus far made, are to be treated as valid, all objections being left to be decided under Section 16 of the Act. As and from this date, the position as adopted in this judgment will govern even pending applications under Section 11(6) of the Act.

(xi) Where District Judges had been designated by the Chief Justice of the High Court under Section 11(6) of the Act, the appointment orders thus far made by them will be treated as valid; but applications if any pending before them as on this date will stand transferred, to be dealt with by the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court or a Judge of that court designated by the Chief Justice.

(xii) The decision in Konkan Railway Corpn. Ltd. & anr. Vs. Rani Construction Pvt. Ltd. [(2000) 8 SCC 159] is overruled.

46. We, therefore, sum up our conclusions as follows:

i) The power exercised by the Chief Justice of the High Court or the Chief Justice of India under Section 11(6) of the Act is not an administrative power. It is a judicial power.

ii) The power under Section 11(6) of the Act, in its entirety, could be delegated, by the Chief Justice of the High Court only to another judge of that court and by the Chief Justice of India to another judge of the Supreme Court.

(iii) In case of designation of a judge of the High Court or of the Supreme Court, the power that is exercised by the designated, judge would be that of the Chief Justice as conferred by the statute.

(iv) The Chief Justice or the designated judge will have the right to decide the preliminary aspects as indicated in the earlier part of this judgment. These will be, his own jurisdiction, to entertain the request, the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, the existence or otherwise of a live claim, the existence of the condition for the exercise of his power and on the qualifications of the arbitrator or arbitrators. The Chief Justice or the judge designated would be entitled to seek the opinion of an institution in the matter of nominating an arbitrator qualified in terms of Section 11(8) of the Act if the need arises but the order appointing the arbitrator could only be that of the Chief Justice or the judge designate.

(v) Designation of a district judge as the authority under Section 11(6) of the Act by the Chief Justice of the High Court is not warranted on the scheme of the Act.

(vi) Once the matter reaches the arbitral tribunal or the sole arbitrator, the High Court would not interfere with orders passed by the arbitrator or the arbitral tribunal during the course of the arbitration proceedings and the parties could approach the court only in terms of Section 37 of the Act or in terms of Section 34 of the Act.

(vii) Since an order passed by the Chief Justice of the High Court or by the designated judge of that court is a judicial order, an appeal will lie against that order only under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to the Supreme Court.

(viii) There can be no appeal against an order of the Chief Justice of India or a judge of the Supreme Court designated by him while entertaining an application under Section 11(6) of the Act.

(ix) In a case where an arbitral tribunal has been constituted by the parties without having recourse to Section 11(6) of the Act, the arbitral tribunal will have the jurisdiction to decide all matters as contemplated by Section 16 of the Act.

(x) Since all were guided by the decision of this Court in Konkan Railway Corpn. Ltd. & anr. Vs. Rani Construction Pvt. Ltd. [(2000) 8 SCC 159] and orders under Section 11(6) of the Act have been made based on the position adopted in that decision, we clarify that appointments of arbitrators or arbitral tribunals thus far made, are to be treated as valid, all objections being left to be decided under Section 16 of the Act. As and from this date, the position as adopted in this judgment will govern even pending applications under Section 11(6) of the Act.

(xi) Where District Judges had been designated by the Chief Justice of the High Court under Section 11(6) of the Act, the appointment orders thus far made by them will be treated as valid; but applications if any pending before them as on this date will stand transferred, to be dealt with by the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court or a Judge of that court designated by the Chief Justice.

(xii) The decision in Konkan Railway Corpn. Ltd. & anr. Vs. Rani Construction Pvt. Ltd. [(2000) 8 SCC 159] is overruled.

 

Hope this answers the query.

Swami Sadashiva Brahmendra Sar (Nil)     17 May 2010

Thank you friends !

From 7 judge decision in Patel Engineering case as quoted by Mr Vineet it is clear that the order is judicial one and not amenable to writ jurisdiction on judicial siide. "(vii) Since an order passed by the Chief Justice of the High Court or by the designated judge of that court is a judicial order, an appeal will lie against that order only under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to the Supreme Court. "

But the doubt remains as to whether a Letter Patents appeal (before two judge  bench) is not maintainnable in view of aforesaid decision ?

Vineet (Director)     20 May 2010

In my opinion Letters patent appeal will not lie as the powers exercised by Chief Justice or his designated Judge u/s 11(6) though held to be judicial but the same are not powers of Supreme Court/ High Court. So the relevant letters patent will not be applicable to judgements passed under these specific powers.

 

Please refer to judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Rodemadan India Ltd Vs International Trade Expo Center Ltd (2006) 11 SCC 651 in this regard.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register