Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. Learned Single Judge in terms of the impugned order dated 23.10.2008 found favour with the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents. The substratum of the plea is that the reference to „an arbitrator‟ has to be understood as the dispute resolving mechanism rather than a conscious agreement of parties to refer the disputes to a sole arbitrator and while interpreting an Act or Regulation, a term in singular would include plural and vive versa in view of Section 13(2) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. A judgment which has been strongly relied upon is CMC Ltd v. Unit Trust of India; AIR 2007 SC 1557. The arbitration clause in that case stated that the dispute shall be settled by arbitration, each party to appoint an arbitrator and the arbitrators appointed had to in turn appoint an umpire. The decision of the umpire _____________________________________________________________________________________________ in case of disagreement between the arbitrators appointed by the parties would be final and the arbitration proceedings were to be conducted in accordance with the rules prescribed by ICA. In those facts it was held that the parties retain the power of to appoint an arbitrator and were free to adopt the procedure for the same and the arbitration would be governed by ICA rules. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner predicates his plea on the right of the parties to choose the forum of arbitration of a single arbitrator alone and such agreement of parties ought to prevail. The expression „an arbitrator‟ is thus sought to be given the meaning which is explicit in the expression and not merely an intention to get the disputes resolved through the process of arbitration. A further fact pleaded is that clause 21(b) of the ICA Rules itself envisages the eventuality of a single arbitrator in case of agreement between the two parties and thus arbitration of a single arbitrator is not alien to the ICA Rules more specifically rule 21(b).

14. The judgment in CMC Ltd v. Unit Trust of India‟s case (supra) does not really support the respondents as the arbitration clause in that case was quite different contemplating appointment of arbitrators. In fact, the ratio of the said judgment is that the parties should be free to adopt the procedure for appointment of arbitrator. There is no question of the singular including plural here as the intent of the parties is clear to appoint a sole arbitrator even if the expression „sole arbitrator‟ has not been used. The expression „an arbitrator‟ is as good an expression as „sole arbitrator‟.