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 application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was maintainable for appointment of an arbitrator when the dispute arose under the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 and the statute itself provided the mechanism for reference to arbitration and appointment of the arbitrator.
Analysis: The special scheme under the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 contemplates designated courts under Section 23 for civil disputes arising in a Special Economic Zone. In the absence of such designation, Section 42 provides for reference of disputes to arbitration, but the arbitrator is to be appointed by the Central Government under Section 42(2). Section 42(3) only makes the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applicable to arbitrations conducted under the SEZ Act, subject to the Act itself and after the statutory mode of appointment is followed. The preconditions for invoking Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 were not satisfied, and the statutory power of appointment under the SEZ Act could not be displaced by resort to Section 11.
Conclusion: The application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was not maintainable and was rejected.