Despite the demand by the dealer to appoint the arbitrator, the Corporation did not make appointment until the application was made under Section 11(6). Thus, the Corporation has forfeited its right of appointment of an arbitrator

Citation

CDJ 2013 SC 233

Deep trading company vs indian oil corporation and others

Head Note

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11 - Corporation has failed to act as required under the procedure agreed upon by the parties in Clause 29 and despite the demand by the dealer to appoint the arbitrator, the Corporation did not make appointment until the application was made under Section 11(6). Thus, the Corporation has forfeited its right of appointment of an arbitrator. In this view of the matter, the Chief Justice ought to have exercised his jurisdiction under Section 11(6) in the matter for appointment of an arbitrator appropriately. The appointment of the arbitrator by the Corporation during the pendency of proceedings under Section 11(6) was of no consequence.

Cases Referred:
Datar Switchgears Ltd. v. Tata Finance Ltd. and Another: [(2000) 8 SCC 151]]
Punj Lloyd [Punj Lloyd Ltd. v. Petronet MHB Ltd.: [(2006) 2 SCC 638]
Northern Railway Administration, Ministry of Railway, New Delhi v. Patel Engineering Company Limited: [(2008) 10 SCC 240]]

(Full Bench)

Comparative Citations:
2013 (2) KLT 35 (SN) (C.No.40), 2013 (2) CTC 888, 2013 (3) MLJ 480, 2013 (4) SCC 35, 2013 AIR(SCW) 1891, 2013 (3) SCJ 29, 2013 AIR(SC) 1479, 2013 (3) LW 311, 2013 (3) KCCR 153 (SN), 2013 (2) RCR(Civil) 953, 2013 (5) Scale 96, 2013 (177) CC 475, 2013 (125) ALLINDCAS 96, 2013 (8) JT 159, 2013 (2) WBLR 778, 2013 (3) BBCJ 159,