Summary
The Supreme Court appointed Justice Amitava Roy as sole arbitrator after finding that the contract incorporated the letter containing the arbitration clause. The respondent’s denial of an arbitration agreement failed when the contract documents were read together. The Court confined its consideration to appointment and left the substantive payment disputes for arbitration. Appointment was expressly subject to the required disclosure and absence of section 12(5) ineligibility.
Issues
- Whether the incorporated contract documents contained an arbitration agreement.
- Whether the appointment request required adjudication of the payment claims.
- What conditions accompanied the appointment.
Held
- Article 1 made the referenced letter an integral contract document; clause 3.14 and that letter established the arbitration clause. The Court rejected the argument that no arbitration agreement existed. (¶¶ 8, 9)
- The appointment proceeding was not a determination of the parties’ substantive contractual entitlements. The Court emphasised the limited inquiry into the agreement’s existence under the statutory framework it applied. (¶¶ 7, 8, 10)
- Justice Amitava Roy was appointed sole arbitrator on fees he could fix. The appointment remained subject to necessary section 12 disclosure and the arbitrator not being ineligible under section 12(5). (¶¶ 11, 12)
Result
Sole arbitrator appointed subject to disclosure and eligibility requirements; petitions and any interlocutory application disposed of, leaving substantive disputes for arbitration.