Supreme Court of India

M.M.T.C. Limited vs Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. on 18

JUDGMENT
1. The point involved for decision is, the effect of The
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "New Act") in
the present case on the arbitration agreement made prior to the
commencement of the New Act. Clause VII of the agreement
dated December 14, 1993 between the parties is, as under:
VII. In the event of any question or dispute arising under or out
of or relating to the construction, meaning and operation or
effect of this agreement or breach thereof, the matter in dispute
shall be referred to arbitrator. Both the parties shall nominate
one Arbitrator each and the arbitrators shall appoint an umpire
before proceeding with the reference. The decision of arbitrators
or in the event of their not agreeing the decision of the umpire
will be final and binding on the parties. The provisions of
the Indian Arbitration Act and Rules made thereunder shall
apply for proceedings. The arbitrators or the umpire, as the case
may, shall be entitled with the consent of the parties to enlarge
the time, from time to time, for making the award. The
arbitrators/umpire shall give a reasoned award. The venue of the
arbitration shall be Bombay.
(Emphasis supplied)
2. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd.,--respondent, claimed that it
had not received certain dues under the contract from the
appellant-MMTC Ltd. and, therefore, it invoked the above
arbitration clause in the agreement between them by a letter
dated January 19, 1996 which was received by the MMTC Ltd.
on January 31, 1996. On February 7, 1996 the respondent
appointed Shri M.N. Chandurkar, a former Chief Justice of
Madras High Court, as its arbitrator. The MMTC Ltd. claimed
that arbitration could not be resorted to and, therefore, it did not
name its arbitrator. The Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. filed an
application in the Bombay High Court for appointing an
arbitrator in accordance with the New Act.
3. Before the High Court, learned Counsel for the MMTC Ltd.
contended that the arbitration clause was not attracted but this
objection was rejected. The other contention on behalf of the
MMTC Ltd. was that the. arbitration agreement provided for the
appointment of two arbitrators while Section 10(1) of the New
Act does not envisage the appointment of an even number of
arbitrators. The High Court by its order dated 28.6.1996 rejected
the contention and gave time to the MMTC Ltd. till July 5, 1996
to appoint an arbitrator. In further held that in the event of the
MMTC Ltd. failing to name its arbitrator, the arbitrator
appointed by Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. would be the sole
arbitrator under Section 10(2) read with Section 11(5) of the
New Act. Time for appointment of the arbitrator was later
extended. The MMTC Ltd. has in the meantime appointed Shri.
S.N. Sapra, a former Judge of the Delhi High Court as its
arbitrator. Hence this appeal by special leave.
4. The contention of the learned Attorney General on behalf of
the appellant is that an arbitration agreement providing for the
appointment of an even number of arbitrators is not a valid
agreement because of Section 10(1) of the New Act; and,
therefore, the only remedy in such a case is by a suit and not by
arbitration. For this reason, he urged, that Sub-section (2)
of Section 10 is not attracted since there is no failure to
determine the number of arbitrators according to Sub-section
(1). Another argument of the learned Attorney General was
that Section 10 is a departure from para 2 of the First Schedule
of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short 1940 Act), which reads as
under;
2. If the reference is to an even number of arbitrators the
arbitrators shall appoint an umpire not later than one month from
the latest date of their respective appointments.
5. In reply Shri Dave, learned Counsel for the respondent
contended that there is no such inconsistency between Section
10 of the New Act and the corresponding provision in the '1940
Act, both being substantially the same. Learned Counsel
contended that the provisions of the New Act must be construed
to promote the object of implementing the scheme of alternative
dispute resolution; and the New Act must be construed to enable
the enforcement of the earlier arbitration agreements. It was
urged that each of the parties having nominated its arbitrator, the
third arbitrator was required to be appointed according
to Section 11(3) and the failure to do so attracts the
consequential results under the New Act. Learned Counsel
contended that the provision for number of arbitrators is a
machinery provision and does not affect the validity of the
arbitration agreement which is to be determined according to
Section 7 of the New Act.
6. Some provisions of the New Act may now be
referred. Section 2(b) defines the 'arbitration agreement' to mean
an agreement referred to in Section 7. Section 7 deals with
arbitration agreement, Section 10 with the number of arbitrators
and Section 11 with the appointment of arbitrators. Sections
7, 10 and the relevant part of the Section 11 are as under:
Section 7:
7 Arbitration agreement-(1) In this part, "arbitration agreement"
means an agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration all or
certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between
them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether
contractual or not.
(2) An arbitration agreement may be in the form of an arbitration
clause in a contract or in the form of a separate agreement.
(3) An arbitration agreement shall be in writing .
(4) An arbitration agreement is in writing if it is contained in
(a) A document signed by the parties;
(b) an exchange of letters, telex, telegrams or other means of
telecommunication which provide a record of the agreement; or
(c) an exchange of statements of claim and defence in which the
existence of the agreement is alleged by one party and not
denied by the other.
(5) The reference in a contract to a document containing an
arbitration clause constitutes an arbitration agreement if the
contract is in writing and the reference is such as to make that
arbitration clause part of the contract.
Section 10:
10. Number of arbitrators -(1) The parties are free to determine
the number of arbitrators, provided that such number shall not
be an even number.
(2) Failing the determination referred to in Sub-section (1), the
arbitral tribunal shall consist of a sole arbitrator.
Section 11:
11. Appointment of arbitrators. -(1) A person of any nationality
may be an arbitrator, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.
(2) Subject to Sub-section (6), the parties are free to agree on a
procedure for appointing the arbitrator or arbitrators.
(3) Failing any agreement referred to in Sub-section (2), in an
arbitration with three arbitrators, each party shall appoint one
arbitrator, and the two appointed arbitrators shall appoint the
third arbitrator who shall act as the presiding arbitrator.
(4) If the appointment procedure in Sub-section (3) applies and
(a) A party fails to appoint an arbitrator within thirty days from
the receipt of a request to do so from the other party; or
(b) The two appointed arbitrators fail to agree on the third
arbitrator within thirty days from the date of their appointment,
the appointment shall be made, upon request of a party, by the
Chief Justice or any person or institution designated by him.
(5) Failing any agreement referred to in Sub-section (2), in an
arbitration with a sole arbitrator, if the parties fail to agree on the
arbitrator within thirty days from receipt of a request by one
party from the other party to so agree the appointment shall be
made, upon request of a party, by the Chief Justice or any person
or institution designated by him.
(6) Where, under an appointment procedure agreed upon by the
parties,
(a) A party fails to act as required under that procedure; or
(b) The parties, or the two appointed arbitrators, fail to reach an
agreement expected of them under that procedure; or
(c) a person, including an institution, fails to perform any
function entrusted to him or it under that procedure, a party may
request the Chief Justice or any person or institution designated
by him to take the necessary measure, unless the agreement on
the appointment procedure provides other means for securing
the appointment.
(7) A decision on a matter entrusted by Sub-section (4) or Sub-
section (5) or Sub-section (6) to the Chief Justice or the person
or institution designated by him is final.
xxx xxx xxx
8. Chapter II of the New Act contains Sections 7 to 9 under the
heading "Arbitration Agreement". Chapter III under the heading
"Composition of Arbitral Tribunal" contains Sections 10 to 15.
9. Sub-section (3) of Section 7 requires an arbitration agreement
to be in writing and Sub-section (4) describes the kind of that
writing. There is nothing in Section 7 to indicate the requirement
of the number of arbitrators as a part of the arbitration
agreement. Thus the validity of an arbitration agreement does
not depend on the number of arbitrators specified therein. The
number of arbitrators is dealt with separately in Section
10 which is a part of machinery provision for the working of the
arbitration agreement. It is, therefore, clear that an arbitration
agreement specifying an even number of arbitrators cannot be a
ground to render the arbitration agreement invalid under the
New Act as contended by the learned Attorney General.
10. Section 10 deals with the number of arbitrators. Sub-section
(1) says that the parties are free to determine the number of
arbitrators, provided that such number shall not be an even
number. Sub-section (2) then says that failing the determination
referred to in Sub-section (1), the arbitral tribunal shall consist
of a sole arbitrator. Section 11 provides for appointment of
arbitrators. This is how arbitral tribunal is constituted.
11. The arbitration clause provides that each party shall
nominate one arbitrator and the two arbitrators shall then
appoint an umpire before proceeding with the reference. The
arbitration agreement is valid as it satisfies the requirement of
Section 7 of the New Act. Section 11(3) requires the two
arbitrators to appoint the third arbitrator or the umpire. There
can be no doubt that the arbitration agreement in the present
case accords with the implied condition contained in para 2 of
the First Schedule to the Arbitration Act, 1940 requiring the two
arbitrators, one each appointed by the two sides, to appoint an
umpire not later than one month from the latest date of their
respective appointment.
12. The question is: whether there is anything in the New Act to
make such an agreement unenforceable? We do not find any
such indication in the New Act. There is no dispute that the
arbitral proceeding in the present case commenced after the New
Act came into force and, therefore, the New Act applies. In view
of the term in the arbitration agreement that the two arbitrators
would appoint the umpire or the third arbitrator before
proceeding with the reference, the requirement of Sub-section
(1) of Section 10 is satisfied and Sub-section (2) thereof has no
application. As earlier stated the agreement satisfies the
requirement of Section 7 of the Act and, therefore is a valid
arbitration agreement. The appointment of arbitrators must,
therefore, be governed by Section 11 of the New Act.
13. In view of the fact that each of the two parties have
appointed their own arbitrators, namely, Justice M.N.
Chandurkar (Retd.) and Justice S.P. Sapra (Retd.), Section
11(3) was attracted and the two appointed arbitrators were
required to appoint a third arbitrator to act as the presiding
arbitrator, failing which the Chief Justice of the High Court or
any person or institution designated by him would be required to
appoint the third arbitrator as required by Section 11(4)(b) of the
New Act. Since the procedure prescribed in Section 11(3) has
not been followed the further consequence provided in Section
11 must follow.
14. Accordingly, we direct that the chief Justice of the High
Court is to appoint the third arbitrator under Section 11(4)(b) of
the New Act in view of the failure of the two appointed
arbitrators to appoint the third arbitrator within thirty days from
the date of their appointments. Direction given by the Chief
Justice of the High Court is substituted to this effect.
15. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.