Case: Hindustan Copper Ltd Vs. Monarch Gold Mining Co. Ltd

exercise such a power, the Judge of the High Court and the Judge of the Supreme Court would be exercising the power vested in the Chief Justice of the High Court or in the Chief Justice of India. Therefore, we clarify that the Chief Justice of a High Court can delegate the function under Section 11(6) of the Act to a Judge of that Court and he would actually exercise the power of the Chief Justice conferred under Section 11(6) of the Act. The position would be the same when the Chief Justice of India delegates the power to another Judge of the Supreme Court and he exercises that power as designated by the Chief Justice of India. 43. In this context, it has also to be noticed that there is an ocean of difference between an institution which has no judicial functions and an authority or person who is already exercising judicial power in his capacity as a judicial authority. Therefore, only a Judge of the Supreme Court or a Judge of the High Court could respectively be equated with the Chief Justice of India or the Chief Justice of the High Court while exercising power under Section 11(6) of the Act as designated by the Chief Justice. A non-judicial body or institution cannot be equated with a Judge of the High Court or a Judge of the Supreme Court and it has to be held that the designation contemplated by Section 11(6) of the Act is not a designation to an institution that is incompetent to perform judicial functions. Under our dispensation a non-judicial authority cannot exercise judicial powers. 44. Once we arrive at the conclusion that the proceeding before the Chief Justice while entertaining an application under Section 11(6) of the Act is adjudicatory, then obviously, the outcome of that adjudication is a judicial order. Once it is a judicial order, the same, as far as the High Court is concerned would be final and the only avenue open to a party feeling aggrieved by the order of the Chief Justice would be to approach the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. If it were an order by the Chief Justice of India, the party will not have any further remedy in respect of the matters covered by the order of the Chief Justice of India or the Judge of the Supreme Court designated by him and he will have to participate in the arbitration before the Tribunal only on the merits of the claim. Obviously, the dispensation in our country, does not contemplate any further appeal from the decision of the Supreme Court and there appears to be nothing objectionable in taking the view that the order of the Chief Justice of India would be final on the matters which are within his purview, while called upon to exercise his jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Act. It is also necessary to notice in this context that this conclusion of ours would really be in aid of quick disposal of arbitration claims and would avoid considerable delay in the process, an object that is sought to be achieved by the Act. 16. In paragraph 47 (pg. 663) of the Report, this Court in SBP & Co.2 summed up its conclusions. To the extent they are relevant, the conclusions read as under : 47. (i) The power exercised by the Chief Justice of the High Court or the Chief Justice of India under Section 11(6) of the Act is not an administrative power. It is a judicial power. (ii) The power under Section 11(6) of the Act, in its entirety, could be delegated, by the Chief Justice of the High Court only to another Judge of that Court and by the Chief Justice of India to another Judge of the Supreme Court. (iii) In case of designation of a Judge of the High Court or of the Supreme Court, the power that is exercised by the designated Judge would be that of the Chief Justice as conferred by the statute. (iv) The Chief Justice or the designated Judge will have the right to decide the preliminary aspects as indicated in the earlier part of this judgment. These will be his own jurisdiction to entertain the request, the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, the existence or otherwise of a live claim, the existence of the condition for the exercise of his power and on the qualifications of the arbitrator or arbitrators. The Chief Justice or the designated Judge would be entitled to seek the opinion of an institution in the matter of nominating an arbitrator qualified in terms of Section 11(8) of the Act if the need arises but the order appointing the arbitrator could only be that of the Chief Justice or the designated Judge. 17. The exposition of law by a seven-Judge Bench of this Court in SBP & Co.2 , leaves no manner of doubt that the procedure that is being followed by the Calcutta High Court with regard to the consideration of the applications under Section 11 of the 1996 Act is legally impermissible. The piecemeal consideration of the application under Section 11 by the Designate Judge and another Designate Judge or the Chief Justice, as the case may be, is not contemplated by Section 11. The function of the Chief Justice or Designate Judge in consideration of the application under Section 11 is judicial and such application has to be dealt with in its entirety by either Chief Justice himself or the Designate Judge and not by both by making it a two-tier procedure as held in Modi Korea Telecommunications Ltd.1. The distinction drawn by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in Modi Korea Telecommunications Ltd.1 between the procedure for appointment of arbitrator and the actual appointment of the arbitrator is not at all well founded. Modi Korea Telecommunications Ltd.1 to the extent it is inconsistent with SBP & Co.2 stands overruled. 18. In view of the above, the

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

Explanation:
1[ds]17. The exposition of law by a seven-Judge Bench of this Court in SBP & Co.2 , leaves no manner of doubt that the procedure that is being followed by the Calcutta High Court with regard to the consideration of the applications under Section 11 of the 1996 Act is legally impermissible. The piecemeal consideration of the application under Section 11 by the Designate Judge and another Designate Judge or the Chief Justice, as the case may be, is not contemplated by Section 11. The function of the Chief Justice or Designate Judge in consideration of the application under Section 11 is judicial and such application has to be dealt with in its entirety by either Chief Justice himself or the Designate Judge and not by both by making it a two-tier procedure as held in Modi Korea Telecommunications Ltd.1. The distinction drawn by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in Modi Korea Telecommunications Ltd.1 between the procedure for appointment of arbitrator and the actual appointment of the arbitrator is not at all well founded. Modi Korea Telecommunications Ltd.1 to the extent it is inconsistent with SBP & Co.2 stands overruled.