Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17. Similarly, in Voestalpine Schienen GmbH v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited5 this Court underscored that the legislative intent behind the 2015 amendment of inserting Section 12(5) of the 1996 Act is to secure neutrality of arbitrators. By virtue of its non- obstante clause, any person whose relationship with the parties falls within the disqualifications provided in Seventh Schedule is rendered ineligible to act as an arbitrator, this is notwithstanding any stipulation provided in the arbitration clause. If any arbitration clause runs contrary to the mandate provided in Section 12(5) of the 1996 Act, the power to appoint an independent arbitrator is vested with the court under section 11 of the 1996 Act, a principle consistent with pre-amendment jurisprudence under Section 11(8) of 5 (2017) 4 SCC 665  1996 Act where courts had, even earlier, overridden restrictive arbitration clauses to ensure the appointment of impartial arbitrators.

19. The Respondent contends that once the arbitration clause referred to in the GCC has become obsolete and non-operative, it would render the entire arbitration mechanism non-existent therefore the Appellant cannot file an application for appointment of arbitrator.

20. We are not persuaded by this submission of the Counsel for Respondent. The very existence of the arbitration clause in the GCC referring to all disputes to arbitrator is the core part of contract. Merely because the procedure to appoint an arbitrator provided in the clause has  become inoperative due to subsequent changes in statutory provisions, would not mean that the core of the contract referring the dispute for adjudication to arbitrator would be rendered nugatory. The amendment in the statute has been enacted with the legislative intent to enforce neutrality of the arbitrator and bring impartiality in arbitration proceedings by virtue of Section 12(5) of the 1996 Act. It cannot be justified to literally interpret the clause in the contract in a manner or at the cost of the entire arbitration mechanism itself being abandoned. The arbitration agreement must be interpreted in a purposive manner, but not literally so as to enable the parties to pursue the intended dispute redressal mechanism of contract. Therefore, it cannot be said that non-operation of arbitration clause in GCC will result into forgoing of entire arbitration mechanism and rendering the Appellant disentitled for seeking appointment of arbitrator. The Appellant is, therefore, entitled to file application under section 11(6) of the 1996 Act for appointment of arbitrator and thereby the power is vested with the court to appoint an arbitrator upon filing of such application.

5.4. It is further clarified that the period from 15-3- 2020 till 28-2-2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23(4) and 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.”