Summary
In railway contract disputes invoked before the 2015 arbitration amendment, the Supreme Court set aside appointments of independent arbitrators made without following the agreed mechanism. It directed appointment under clause 64(3) of the contracts. The effect of no-claim certificates and supplementary settlements, disputed as products of compulsion, was left for the arbitrator.
Issues
- Whether the pre-amendment contractual appointment procedure should govern these references.
- Whether the Court should decide the disputed effect of no-claim certificates and supplementary agreements.
Held
- Requests made before the 2015 amendment were governed by the unamended arbitration law unless the parties otherwise agreed. (¶¶ 10, 11)
- In these cases the High Court should have followed the agreed appointment mechanism in clause 64 rather than appoint independent arbitrators. The Court applied Parmar Construction Company. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 15)
- The disputed effect of the no-claim certificates and alleged accord and satisfaction was left open for the arbitrator; the Court did not determine compulsion or the merits of the claims. (¶ 16)
Result
Appeals allowed and the High Court appointments set aside. Railways was directed to appoint under clause 64(3) within one month, notifying the contractors. Claims were due within six weeks of notification and replies within four further weeks. Arbitration was to proceed with a sufficient hearing and be decided expeditiously, preferably within four months.