Summary
Applying Section 11(6A) to a post-2015 invocation, the Court reversed refusal to appoint an arbitrator on limitation grounds. With the arbitration agreement undisputed, limitation was left to the arbitral tribunal under the statutory policy limiting pre-reference review. By consent, Justice A. M. Sapre was appointed sole arbitrator, subject to statutory disclosures. Singrauli was identified as the seat, with flexibility for a convenient hearing venue.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could reject the appointment application by deciding claim limitation under the applicable amended Section 11 regime.
Provisions considered
- Section 11(6A), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996The post-2015 invocation attracted the amended provision confining the appointment-stage examination to existence of the arbitration agreement. (¶¶ 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 9.7, 9.8)
Held
- The March 2016 invocation attracted the 2015 amendments. Section 11(6A) narrowed the pre-reference examination compared with the earlier authorities requiring broader threshold scrutiny. (¶¶ 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 9.7, 9.8)
- With existence of the arbitration agreement undisputed, the limitation objection, involving fact and law, was to be decided by the tribunal rather than used here to refuse appointment. The Court did not determine whether the underlying claims were timely. (¶¶ 9.9, 9.10, 9.11, 9.12, 10)
- The consensual appointment required the disclosures concerning independence, impartiality and available time. Singrauli remained the seat subject to consensual modification, while hearings could occur at a convenient venue. (¶¶ 11, 12)
Result
High Court order set aside; limitation directed to the tribunal. Justice A. M. Sapre appointed sole arbitrator by consent, subject to Section 12 declarations. Seat at Singrauli unless consensually modified; fees under the Fourth Schedule and arbitration costs shared equally. Parties directed to appear on 2 December 2019 at 2 p.m. Matter disposed of.