Summary
By consent, the Supreme Court appointed a sole arbitrator to decide all claims and counterclaims under a wind-farm development agreement, replacing its three-member tribunal arrangement. Arbitration was to proceed under the 1996 Act through the Madras High Court Arbitration Centre, subject to the arbitrator’s required independence and availability declarations. The contractor’s pending Facilitation Council proceeding was directed to close. The disposition rested on the parties’ agreement rather than a merits ruling on the High Court’s view of MSMED counterclaims.
Issues
- How the agreed reference to a court-appointed sole arbitrator should be implemented.
Held
- The parties agreed to have their disputes decided under the 1996 Act by a sole arbitrator. Their contractual requirement of a three-member tribunal was superseded to that extent. (¶ 8)
- Justice K. Kannan was appointed to adjudicate all claims and counterclaims, with proceedings through the Madras High Court Arbitration Centre under its rules. Appointment was subject to the prescribed declarations, and fees were governed by the Centre’s schedule. (¶ 8)
- The contractor’s identified pending proceeding before the Pune Facilitation Council was to stand closed in consequence of the agreed arbitration arrangement. (¶ 9)
Result
Appeal disposed of by consent with appointment of a sole arbitrator and closure of the identified Facilitation Council proceeding.