Summary
The Supreme Court held that the contract’s reference to arbitration or court offered a choice after unsuccessful consultation. The petitioner had chosen arbitration, and the respondent’s objection did not prevent appointment on these facts. Justice Prakash Prabhakar Naolekar was appointed sole arbitrator, with directions to follow the 2015 amendment and endeavour to complete proceedings as prescribed.
Issues
- Whether the dispute-resolution clause providing for arbitration or court permitted appointment when the petitioner chose arbitration.
Provisions considered
- Section 11(5), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996On the petitioner’s request after the respondent refused consent to its nominee, the Court construed the optional dispute-resolution clause and appointed a sole arbitrator. (¶¶ 1, 3–11)
Held
- Despite its awkward translation, clause 15 contemplated consultation followed by either arbitration or court proceedings. Its language demonstrated an intention to allow arbitration as one of the available dispute-resolution choices. (¶ 4–7)
- The petitioner invoked the arbitration option. In the circumstances, the alternative reference to court proceedings did not defeat that choice or prevent the Court from appointing an arbitrator. (¶ 8–11)
- Justice Prakash Prabhakar Naolekar was appointed sole arbitrator. He was to be guided by the 2015 amendment and make positive efforts to complete arbitration in accordance with it. The Registry was to send him the order, and counsel could also notify him. (¶ 11–13)
Result
Petition allowed without costs; Justice Prakash Prabhakar Naolekar appointed sole arbitrator, to proceed under the 2015 amendment framework.