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 an arbitrator could be appointed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in a dispute arising from auction of uncleared imported goods, and whether the first respondent was bound by the arbitration clause.
Analysis: The dispute arose from an auction conducted in the context of uncleared imported goods governed by customs law and the cargo-handling regulations. The auction terms contemplated reference of unresolved disputes to arbitration, and the first respondent, though contending that it was only a custodian, was held to be bound in the capacity in which it dealt with the goods under the customs regime. The Court accepted that the first respondent had power and obligations under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962, read with the relevant regulations, and that the arbitration clause could be invoked notwithstanding the objections raised regarding the contractual structure and stamp duty.
Conclusion: An arbitrator was appointed, and the petition for appointment under Section 11(6) succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the contractual terms governing disposal of uncleared imported goods provide for arbitration, and the custodian acts within a customs-regulated framework binding it to those terms, the existence of objections as to privity or the seller's role does not prevent appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6).