Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Having considered the rival submissions before us, we find that though Ext.P1 agreement was entered into between the parties on 26.9.2011, and that agreement provided for an arbitration clause, subsequently, the Government of India have issued Ext.P11 creating Permanent Machinery of Arbitrators : 3 :

which binds the first appellant and the first respondent. Ext.P11 provides for mandatory reference of disputes to Arbitration by PMA whenever disputes arise between entities such as the first appellant and the first respondent. In the context of the contention raised by the appellants irrespective of Ext.P11, the parties are governed by contractual provision of arbitration, it is relevant to refer to the provision of Ext.P11 which, inter alia, provides that if any arbitrator has already been appointed in any dispute that should immediately be cancelled and also requiring entities such as the first respondent and the first appellant to ensure inclusion of Arbitration Clause in favour of Permanent Machinery of Arbitrators (PMA) in all existing future contracts/supply orders. This reveals the intention of the Government of India that even with regard to the existing entities, the arbitration should be governed by the terms of Ext.P11.

: 4 :

5. If that be so, the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that the first respondent was entitled to have the arbitration by PMA has to be upheld. We also take note of the admitted fact that pursuant to the judgment of this court, arbitration by Permanent Machinery of Arbitrators (PMA) has already proceeded and what remains is only passing of orders. We find that the appellants have not made out a case for interference.