Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15. The decision of the Delhi High Court in B.W.L. Ltd. v. MTNL [(2000) 2 Arb LR 190 : (2000) 85 DLT 84 (Del)] decided on 23-2-2000 is also distinguishable inasmuch as the respondent, in spite of being given an opportunity on 11-10-1999 by the Court after filing of the application under Section 11 to appoint an arbitrator, failed to do so and the Court felt that it was a fit case for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11. This case is also distinguishable as the appointment was not made before the filing of the application under Section 11.

14. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Punj Lloyd Ltd. (appellant) v. Petronet MHB Ltd. (2006) 2 SCC 638 considered the applicability of Section 11(6) petition and considered the facts which are similar to the facts of the present case and held that once notice period of 30 days had lapsed, and the party had moved the Chief Justice under Section 11(6), the other party having right to appoint arbitrator under arbitral agreement loses the right to do so. While taking this view, the Court had referred to the judgment rendered in Datar Switchgears Ltd. (appellant) v. Tata Finance Ltd. and Another (2000) 8 SCC 151 wherein at page 158 (para 19) SCC, this Court held as under: "19. So far as cases falling under Section 11(6) are concerned - such as the one before us no time limit has been prescribed under the Act, whereas a period of 30 days has been prescribed under Section 11(4) and Section 11(5) of the Act. In our view, therefore, so far as Section 11(6) is concerned, if one party demands the opposite party to appoint an arbitrator and the opposite party does not make an appointment within 30 days of the demand, the right to appointment does not get automatically forfeited after expiry of 30 days. If the opposite party makes an appointment even after 30 days of the demand, but before the first party has moved the court under Section 11, that would be sufficient. In other words, in cases arising under Section 11(6), if the opposite party has not made an appointment within 30 days of demand, the right to make appointment is not forfeited but continues, but an appointment has to be made before the former files application under Section 11 seeking appointment of an arbitrator. Only then the right of the opposite party ceases. We do not, therefore, agree with the observation in the above judgments that if the appointment is not made within 30 days of demand, the right to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) is forfeited."

15. In Datar Switchgears [Datar Switchgears Ltd. v. Tata Finance Ltd., (2000) 8 SCC 151] (SCC p. 158, para 19), a two-Judge Bench of this Court considered the scheme of Section 11, noted the distinguishing features between Section 11(5) and Section 11(6) and then considered the question whether in a case falling under Section 11(6), the opposite party cannot appoint an arbitrator after the expiry of thirty days from the date of demand. This Court held that in cases arising under Section 11(6), if the opposite party has not made an appointment within thirty days of the demand, the right to make appointment is not forfeited but continues, but such an appointment has to be made before the first party makes application under Section 11 seeking appointment of an arbitrator. If no appointment has been made by the opposite party till application under Section 11(6) has been made, the right of the opposite party to make appointment ceases and is forfeited.

15. In the given facts and circumstances, the High Court was not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Act for appointment of an Arbitrator and dismissed the petition by an Order dated 26th July, 2019 with liberty to the appellant to submit objections against the ex-parte award dated 21st June, 2013 under Section 34 or 37 of the Act, if so advised.
16. In our considered view, so far as the question of law is concerned, certainly being settled that after the application has been filed for appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act, before the High Court the respondents forfeited their right to appoint an Arbitrator under the clause of arbitration thereafter but from the narration of facts which has been noticed by us, we are of the view that no error was committed by the High Court in dismissing the petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Act for appointment of an Arbitrator by an Order dated 26th July, 2019.