Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the arbitration clause in the contract applied to a dispute between a public sector enterprise and a private contractor, and whether appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was proper.
Analysis: The clause relied upon was titled for commercial disputes between public sector enterprises inter se and between public sector enterprises and Government departments. Its language, read as a whole and in light of the heading, showed that it was confined to disputes of that class and did not extend to an agreement involving a private party. In construing the arbitration agreement, the heading and context were relevant aids, and the court could not treat the clause as covering a dispute outside its stated ambit.
Conclusion: The appointment of the arbitrator under Section 11(6) was improper because the arbitration clause did not apply to the parties' dispute.
Final Conclusion: The order appointing the arbitrator was set aside and the parties were left to pursue civil remedies, with the benefit of limitation protection preserved.
Ratio Decidendi: An arbitration clause must be construed according to its text, heading, and context, and cannot be extended beyond the class of disputes to which it is plainly confined.