Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The Arbitrator shall proceed and decide the same under Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

A copy of the order be sent to Mr. Justice Mukul Mudgal, the learned Sole Arbitrator."

2. The order was passed by consent. It is clear from the order that the order in the Arbitration petition under Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was set-aside only to the extent that it related to the manner in which the Arbitrator was directed to be appointed. That the matter could be referred to the Arbitration, is clear from the said fact that the Supreme Court itself appointed the Arbitrator in the matter. Further an application for 2 of 3 clarification of the order was rejected by an order of the Supreme Court dated 12.07.2016 in I.A. No. 2 of 2016. The Supreme Court held that there was no reason to re-consider its order dated 22.01.2016. We are informed that I.A. No. 2 of 2016 was filed, inter alia, on the contention that the issue of blacklisting had not been referred to Arbitration. It is, therefore, clear that all the issues stood referred to Arbitration. This is important in view of an order passed by the learned Arbitrator under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act. The learned Arbitrator in paragraph 13 of the order expressly stayed the blacklisting/holiday listing order dated 01.03.2016 during the pendency of the Arbitral proceeding. In view thereof, it was not permissible for the respondents to consider the petitioner's bid as non-responsive on the ground that the petitioner had been blacklisted in an earlier contract.