1969 (9) TMI 114 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court validates arbitration agreement under Indian law, dismisses non-disclosure claims, emphasizes Registrar's discretion.

UNION TEXTILE TRAIDERS Versus SHRI BHAWANI COTTON MILLS LTD.

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the arbitration agreement under the Indian Arbitration Act, dismissing contentions regarding non-disclosure of ... - Issues:1. Validity of the arbitration agreement under the Indian Arbitration Act.2. Disclosure of arbitrators' names and its compliance with natural justice.3. Conflict between the Rules of Arbitration of the Indian Chamber of Commerce and the provisions of the Act.4. Impact of rules on the powers and jurisdiction of the court under relevant provisions of the Act.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: The main issue in this case was the validity of the arbitration agreement under the Indian Arbitration Act. The appellant argued that the arbitration agreement was void and ineffective due to conflicting clauses in the contract. The contract specified that disputes would be referred to the Indian Chamber of Commerce for arbitration, but the appellant was not a member of the Chamber. The appellant contended that the Rules of the Tribunal of Arbitration of the Chamber were illegal and void. However, both the High Court and the Supreme Court rejected these contentions and upheld the validity of the arbitration agreement.Issue 2: Another crucial issue raised was the non-disclosure of the names of the arbitrators by the Registrar of the Chamber of Commerce. The appellant argued that this non-disclosure violated natural justice and infringed the provisions of the Act. The appellant sought information regarding the arbitrators but was not provided with the names. The Court examined the Rules of Arbitration of the Chamber, which allowed for non-disclosure of arbitrators' names to non-members. The Court held that the power given to the Registrar was discretionary and did not conflict with the Act as parties would eventually know the arbitrators' names once proceedings commenced.Issue 3: The appellant also contended that Rule III of the Rules of Arbitration of the Indian Chamber of Commerce conflicted with the Act. The Rule stated that the Tribunal would consist of persons selected by the Chamber's Committee. The appellant argued that this rule was in conflict with the Act. The Court examined a similar judgment of the Calcutta High Court but disagreed with its interpretation, holding that the Chamber's Rules did not offend any sections of the Act.Issue 4: The final issue revolved around the impact of the Chamber's Rules on the powers and jurisdiction of the court under the relevant provisions of the Act. The Court emphasized that the appellant had agreed to submit to the arbitration of the Chamber, thereby being bound by all its Rules. The Court found no conflict between the Chamber's Rules and the Act, stating that the Rules did not interfere with the court's powers under the Act. The Court highlighted that the Chamber's non-disclosure rule aimed to prevent any party from influencing arbitrators before proceedings commenced.In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the arbitration agreement, dismissed the appellant's contentions regarding non-disclosure of arbitrators' names, and found no conflict between the Chamber's Rules and the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act. The Court emphasized the discretionary power of the Registrar and the importance of parties being able to raise objections during arbitration proceedings. The appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs.