Case: Walter Bau Ag, Legal Successor, of the Original Contractor, Dyckerhoff &amp; Widmann A.G Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai &amp; Another

appoint an arbitrator. The respondent Corporation pursuant to the said communication of the ICADR appointed Mr. Justice (Retd.) A.D. Mane as its arbitrator by communication dated 3rd July, 2014. Thereafter, this application/petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Arbitration Act") was filed on 21st August, 2014. 5. Mr. Shamik Sanjanwala, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the arbitration clause in the agreement read with Rules 5 and 35 of the ICADR Rules embody a procedure that was agreed upon by the parties with regard to appointment of the arbitrator(s). Clearly and evidently, the appointment of Mr. Justice A.D. Mane by the respondent Corporation is contrary to the procedure agreed upon inasmuch as under the relevant Rules governing the ICADR, the said Body was required to communicate the respondent Corporation a panel of three names and it is from the said panel that the respondent Corporation was required to name its Arbitrator. The Rules do not contemplate an alternative procedure giving the respondent Corporation liberty to appoint an Arbitrator of his choice once the respondent Corporation failed to appoint its arbitrator within the agreed upon period of thirty days from the receipt of the notice from the petitioner. The appointment of Mr. Justice A.D.Mane as Arbitrator is, therefore, non-est, leaving it open for this Court to exercise its powers under Section 11(6) of the Act to appoint an Arbitrator on behalf of the respondent Corporation. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has a serious basis to question the impartiality and independence of the arbitrator purported to be appointed by the respondent Corporation.6. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General, appearing for the the respondent Corporation, on the other hand, has submitted that the present petition would not be maintainable inasmuch as an Arbitrator has already been appointed and any exercise of power under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, at this stage, would operate as an ouster of the said Arbitrator. It is submitted that the remedy of the petitioner, if any, lies elsewhere and under different provisions of the Arbitration Act and not by way of an application under Section 11(6) thereof. Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Antrix Corporation Limited versus Devas Multimedia Private Limited [(2014) 11 SCC 560] and another recent pronouncement of this Court dated 16th December, 2014 in Pricol Limited versus Johnson Controls Enterprise Ltd. & Ors. [Arbitration Case (Civil) NO.30 of 2014].7. Alternatively, it has been urged by Mr.Rohatgi that as the appointment of Mr. Justice A.D. Mane was made before the present application/petition was filed in this Court, the said appointment would be valid in law. It is submitted that the requirement of appointment within 30 days of receipt of a notice is only in cases covered under Section 11(4) and 11(5) of the Arbitration Act, whereas in cases falling under Section 11(2) read with Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, so long the appointment is made before the concerned aggrieved party moves the Court under Section 11(6), such appointment will not be invalidated. In this regard, reliance has been placed on Datar Switchgears Ltd. Versus Tata Finance Ltd. and another [(2000) 8 SCC 151] and Deep Trading Company versus Indian Oil Corporation and others [(2013) 4 SCC 35] . 8. While it is correct that in Antrix (supra) and Pricol Limited (supra), it was opined by this Court that after appointment of an Arbitrator is made, the remedy of the aggrieved party is not under Section 11(6) but such remedy lies elsewhere and under different provisions of the Arbitration Act (Sections 12 and 13), the context in which the aforesaid view was expressed cannot be lost sight of. In Antrix (supra), appointment of the Arbitrator, as per ICC Rules, was as per the alternative procedure agreed upon, whereas in Pricol Limited (supra), the party which had filed the application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act had already submitted to the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator. In the present case, the situation is otherwise. 9. Unless the appointment of the arbitrator is ex facie valid and such appointment satisfies the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, acceptance of such appointment as a fait accompli to debar the jurisdiction under Section 11(6) cannot be countenanced in law. In the present case, the agreed upon procedure between the parties contemplated the appointment of the arbitrator by second party within 30 days of receipt of a notice from the first party. While the decision in Datar Switchgears Ltd. (supra) may have introduced some flexibility in the time frame agreed upon by the parties by extending it till a point of time anterior to the filing of the application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, it cannot be lost sight of that in the present case the appointment of Shri Justice A.D. Mane is clearly contrary to the provisions of the Rules governing the appointment of Arbitrators by ICADR, which the parties had agreed to abide in the matter of such appointment. The option given to the respondent Corporation to go beyond the panel submitted by the ICADR and to appoint any person of its choice was clearly not in the contemplation of the parties. If that be so, obviously, the appointment of Shri Justice A.D. Mane is non- est in law. Such an appointment, therefore, will not inhibit the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act. It cannot, therefore, be held that the present proceeding is not maintainable in law. The appointment of Shri Justice A.D. Mane made beyond 30 days of the receipt of notice by the petitioner, though may appear to be in conformity with the law laid down in Datar Switchgears Ltd. (supra), is clearly contrary to the agreed procedure which required the appointment made by the respondent Corporation to be from the panel submitted by the ICADR. The said appointment, therefore, is clearly invalid in law.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]9. Unless the appointment of the arbitrator is ex facie valid and such appointment satisfies the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, acceptance of such appointment as a fait accompli to debar the jurisdiction under Section 11(6) cannot be countenanced in law. In the present case, the agreed upon procedure between the parties contemplated the appointment of the arbitrator by second party within 30 days of receipt of a notice from the first party. While the decision in Datar Switchgears Ltd. (supra) may have introduced some flexibility in the time frame agreed upon by the parties by extending it till a point of time anterior to the filing of the application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, it cannot be lost sight of that in the present case the appointment of Shri Justice A.D. Mane is clearly contrary to the provisions of the Rules governing the appointment of Arbitrators by ICADR, which the parties had agreed to abide in the matter of such appointment. The option given to the respondent Corporation to go beyond the panel submitted by the ICADR and to appoint any person of its choice was clearly not in the contemplation of the parties. If that be so, obviously, the appointment of Shri Justice A.D. Mane is nonest in law. Such an appointment, therefore, will not inhibit the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act. It cannot, therefore, be held that the present proceeding is not maintainable in law. The appointment of Shri Justice A.D. Mane made beyond 30 days of the receipt of notice by the petitioner, though may appear to be in conformity with the law laid down in Datar Switchgears Ltd. (supra), is clearly contrary to the agreed procedure which required the appointment made by the respondent Corporation to be from the panel submitted by the ICADR. The said appointment, therefore, is clearly invalid in law.While it is correct that in Antrix (supra) and Pricol Limited (supra), it was opined by this Court that after appointment of an Arbitrator is made, the remedy of the aggrieved party is not under Section 11(6) but such remedy lies elsewhere and under different provisions of the Arbitration Act (Sections 12 and 13), the context in which the aforesaid view was expressed cannot be lost sight of. In Antrix (supra), appointment of the Arbitrator, as per ICC Rules, was as per the alternative procedure agreed upon, whereas in Pricol Limited (supra), the party which had filed the application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act had already submitted to the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator. In the present case, the situation is otherwise.