Supreme Court of India
Agio Countertrade Pte. Ltd. vs Punjab Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. on 14 May, 1999
Equivalent citations: [2000]100COMPCAS826(SC), 1999(3)CTC447, JT1999(10)SC248, 2004(5)SCALE821, (1999)5SCC734, AIRONLINE 1999 SC 141, 1999 (5) SCC 734, (2001) 1 COM LJ 393, 2003 ARBI LR (SUPP) 9, (2004) 5 SCALE 821, (2000) 1 LAND LR 318, (1999) 3 ARBI LR 183, 2002 (9) SCC 520, (2000) 100 COM CAS 826, (2000) 1 CUR CC 70, (1999) 10 JT 248, (1999) 9 SUPREME 544, (1999) 2 ARBILR 103, (1998) 3 MAH LJ 695, (1999) 1 CIVLJ 908, (1998) 4 ALLMR 412 (BOM), 1998 BOM LR 3 708, (1999) 10 JT 248 (SC), (1998) 4 BOM CR 830, (2006) 10 SCALE 241, 2006 (12) SCC 129, (2006) 3 ALLCRIR 3194, (2006) 47 ALLINDCAS 950, (2006) 4 CRIMES 202, (2006) 4 CURCRIR 166, (2006) 8 SCJ 424, (2006) 8 SUPREME 22, (2007) 1 ANDHLT(CRI) 26, (2007) 1 CHANDCRIC 68, (2007) 1 EASTCRIC 50, 2007 (1) SCC (CRI) 566
Author: Sujata.V. Manohar
Bench: Sujata V. Manohar
ORDER Sujata.V. Manohar, J.
1. Objection is over-ruled in view of the directions given by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India.
2. This is an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the appointment of an arbitrator. The application is made under the "Appointment of Arbitrators by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India Scheme, 1996", framed pursuant to Section 11.
3. In the present case, under Sections 11(5) and (6), the Chief Justice or any person designated by him to take necessary measures is required to appoint an arbitrator as provided therein. It is not disputed by either side that the requirements of these sub-sections are complied with in the present case. It is, however, contended by learned Counsel for the respondent that since the respondent Company has been declared as a sick industrial company under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, and a scheme for the said Company has also been framed under the said Act, an arbitrator should not be appointed. The provisions of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 have been shown to me. The present proceedings, however, for the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 have a very narrow scope and the same are not covered by Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. If however, the respondents desire that the arbitration proceedings should not be proceeded with, it is open to them to take appropriate legal steps in that connection under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and in accordance with law.
4. In the premises, by consent of both parties, Justice S. Ranganathan, retired Judge of the Supreme Court of India is appointed as sole arbitrator, as prayed for in the arbitration petition.