Case: Antrix Corp. Ltd Vs. Devas Multimedia P. Ltd

would be governed by the 1996 Act and called upon Devas to appoint its nominee Arbitrator under the said provisions. As Devas did not respond to the Petitioners letter dated 30th July, 2011, the Petitioner filed the application under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act.30. In the instant case, the Arbitration Agreement provides that the arbitration proceedings would be held in accordance with the rules and procedures of the International Chamber of Commerce or UNCITRAL. Rightly or wrongly, Devas made a request for arbitration to the ICC International Court of Arbitration on 29th June, 2011, in accordance with the aforesaid Agreement and one Mr. V.V. Veedar was appointed by Devas as its nominee Arbitrator. By the letter written by the International Chamber of Commerce on 5th July, 2011, the Petitioner was required to appoint its nominee Arbitrator, but it chose not to do so and instead made an application under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act and also indicated that it had appointed Mrs. Justice Sujata V. Manohar, as its Arbitrator in terms of Article 20(9) of the Agreement.31. The matter is not as complex as it seems and in our view, once the Arbitration Agreement had been invoked by Devas and a nominee Arbitrator had also been appointed by it, the Arbitration Agreement could not have been invoked for a second time by the Petitioner, which was fully aware of the appointment made by the Respondent. It would lead to an anomalous state of affairs if the appointment of an Arbitrator once made, could be questioned in a subsequent proceeding initiated by the other party also for the appointment of an Arbitrator. In our view, while the Petitioner was certainly entitled to challenge the appointment of the Arbitrator at the instance of Devas, it could not do so by way of an independent proceeding under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act. While power has been vested in the Chief Justice to appoint an Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act, such appointment can be questioned under Section 13 thereof. In a proceeding under Section 11 of the 1996 Act, the Chief Justice cannot replace one Arbitrator already appointed in exercise of the Arbitration Agreement. It may be noted that in case of Gesellschaft Fur Biotechnologische Forschun GMBH Vs. Kopran Laboratories Ltd. & Anr. [(2004) 13 SCC 630], a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, while hearing an appeal under Section 8 of the 1996 Act, directed the claims/disputes of the parties to be referred to the sole arbitration of a retired Chief Justice with the venue at Bombay, despite the fact that under the Arbitration Agreement it had been indicated that any disputes, controversy or claim arising out of or in relation to the Agreement, would be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Rules of Reconciliation of the International Chamber of Commerce, Paris, with the venue of arbitration in Bombay, Maharashtra, India. This Court held that when there was a deviation from the methodology for appointment of an Arbitrator, it was incumbent on the part of the Chief Justice to assign reasons for such departure.32. Sub-Section (6) of Section 11 of the 1996 Act, quite categorically provides that where the parties fail to act in terms of a procedure agreed upon by them, the provisions of Sub-Section (6) may be invoked by any of the parties. Where in terms of the Agreement, the arbitration clause has already been invoked by one of the parties thereto under the I.C.C. Rules, the provisions of Sub-section (6) cannot be invoked again, and, in case the other party is dissatisfied or aggrieved by the appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of the Agreement, his/its remedy would be by way of a petition under Section 13, and, thereafter, under Section 34 of the 1996 Act.33. The law is well settled that where an Arbitrator had already been appointed and intimation thereof had been conveyed to the other party, a separate application for appointment of an Arbitrator is not maintainable. Once the power has been exercised under the Arbitration Agreement, there is no power left to, once again, refer the same disputes to arbitration under Section 11 of the 1996 Act, unless the order closing the proceedings is subsequently set aside. In Som Datt Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab [2006 (3) RAJ 144 (P&H)], the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court held, and we agree with the finding, that when the Arbitral Tribunal is already seized of the disputes between the parties to the Arbitration Agreement, constitution of another Arbitral Tribunal in respect of those same issues which are already pending before the Arbitral Tribunal for adjudication, would be without jurisdiction.34. In view of the language of Article 20 of the Arbitration Agreement which provided that the arbitration proceedings would be held in accordance with the rules and procedures of the International Chamber of Commerce or UNCITRAL, Devas was entitled to invoke the Rules of Arbitration of the ICC for the conduct of the arbitration proceedings. Article 19 of the Agreement provided that the rights and responsibilities of the parties thereunder would be subject to and construed in accordance with the laws of India. There is, therefore, a clear distinction between the law which was to operate as the governing law of the Agreement and the law which was to govern the arbitration proceedings. Once the provisions of the ICC Rules of Arbitration had been invoked by Devas, the proceedings initiated thereunder could not be interfered with in a proceeding under Section 11 of the 1996 Act. The invocation of the ICC Rules would, of course, be subject to challenge in appropriate proceedings but not by way of an application under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act. Where the parties had agreed that the procedure for the arbitration would be governed by the ICC Rules, the same would necessarily include the appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal in terms of the Arbitration Agreement and the said Rules.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]29. In the instant case, Devas, without responding to the Petitioners letter written in terms of Article 20 of the Arbitration Agreement, unilaterally addressed a Request for Arbitration to the ICC International Court of Arbitration for resolution of the disputes arising under the Agreement and also appointed its nominee Arbitrator. On the other hand, the Petitioner appointed its nominee Arbitrator with the caveat that the arbitration would be governed by the 1996 Act and called upon Devas to appoint its nominee Arbitrator under the said provisions. As Devas did not respond to the Petitioners letter dated 30th July, 2011, the Petitioner filed the application under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act.30. In the instant case, the Arbitration Agreement provides that the arbitration proceedings would be held in accordance with the rules and procedures of the International Chamber of Commerce or UNCITRAL. Rightly or wrongly, Devas made a request for arbitration to the ICC International Court of Arbitration on 29th June, 2011, in accordance with the aforesaid Agreement and one Mr. V.V. Veedar was appointed by Devas as its nominee Arbitrator. By the letter written by the International Chamber of Commerce on 5th July, 2011, the Petitioner was required to appoint its nominee Arbitrator, but it chose not to do so and instead made an application under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act and also indicated that it had appointed Mrs. Justice Sujata V. Manohar, as its Arbitrator in terms of Article 20(9) of the Agreement.31. The matter is not as complex as it seems and in our view, once the Arbitration Agreement had been invoked by Devas and a nominee Arbitrator had also been appointed by it, the Arbitration Agreement could not have been invoked for a second time by the Petitioner, which was fully aware of the appointment made by the Respondent. It would lead to an anomalous state of affairs if the appointment of an Arbitrator once made, could be questioned in a subsequent proceeding initiated by the other party also for the appointment of an Arbitrator. In our view, while the Petitioner was certainly entitled to challenge the appointment of the Arbitrator at the instance of Devas, it could not do so by way of an independent proceeding under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act. While power has been vested in the Chief Justice to appoint an Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act, such appointment can be questioned under Section 13 thereof. In a proceeding under Section 11 of the 1996 Act, the Chief Justice cannot replace one Arbitrator already appointed in exercise of the Arbitration Agreement. It may be noted that in case of Gesellschaft Fur Biotechnologische Forschun GMBH Vs. Kopran Laboratories Ltd. & Anr. [(2004) 13 SCC 630], a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, while hearing an appeal under Section 8 of the 1996 Act, directed the claims/disputes of the parties to be referred to the sole arbitration of a retired Chief Justice with the venue at Bombay, despite the fact that under the Arbitration Agreement it had been indicated that any disputes, controversy or claim arising out of or in relation to the Agreement, would be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Rules of Reconciliation of the International Chamber of Commerce, Paris, with the venue of arbitration in Bombay, Maharashtra, India. This Court held that when there was a deviation from the methodology for appointment of an Arbitrator, it was incumbent on the part of the Chief Justice to assign reasons for such departure.32. Sub-Section (6) of Section 11 of the 1996 Act, quite categorically provides that where the parties fail to act in terms of a procedure agreed upon by them, the provisions of Sub-Section (6) may be invoked by any of the parties. Where in terms of the Agreement, the arbitration clause has already been invoked by one of the parties thereto under the I.C.C. Rules, the provisions of Sub-section (6) cannot be invoked again, and, in case the other party is dissatisfied or aggrieved by the appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of the Agreement, his/its remedy would be by way of a petition under Section 13, and, thereafter, under Section 34 of the 1996 Act.33. The law is well settled that where an Arbitrator had already been appointed and intimation thereof had been conveyed to the other party, a separate application for appointment of an Arbitrator is not maintainable. Once the power has been exercised under the Arbitration Agreement, there is no power left to, once again, refer the same disputes to arbitration under Section 11 of the 1996 Act, unless the order closing the proceedings is subsequently set aside. In Som Datt Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab [2006 (3) RAJ 144 (P&H)], the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court held, and we agree with the finding, that when the Arbitral Tribunal is already seized of the disputes between the parties to the Arbitration Agreement, constitution of another Arbitral Tribunal in respect of those same issues which are already pending before the Arbitral Tribunal for adjudication, would be without jurisdiction.34. In view of the language of Article 20 of the Arbitration Agreement which provided that the arbitration proceedings would be held in accordance with the rules and procedures of the International Chamber of Commerce or UNCITRAL, Devas was entitled to invoke the Rules of Arbitration of the ICC for the conduct of the arbitration proceedings. Article 19 of the Agreement provided that the rights and responsibilities of the parties thereunder would be subject to and construed in accordance with the laws of India. There is, therefore, a clear distinction between the law which was to operate as the governing law of the Agreement and the law which was to govern the arbitration proceedings. Once the provisions of the ICC Rules of Arbitration had been invoked by Devas, the proceedings initiated thereunder could not be interfered with in a proceeding under Section 11 of the 1996 Act. The invocation of the ICC Rules would, of course, be subject to challenge in appropriate proceedings but not by way of an application under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act. Where the parties had agreed that the procedure for the arbitration would be governed by the ICC Rules, the same would necessarily include the appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal in terms of the Arbitration Agreement and the said Rules.