In the case TULSI DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD. v. DR. APPU BENNY THOMAS [AR NO. 105 OF 2020] , the Kerala High Court while deciding the case, analysed the interplay between section 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”).
The parties had entered into a lease agreement which contained an arbitration clause that in case parties fail to appoint a sole arbitrator, the lessor would have the right to appoint an arbitrator.
The petitioner approached the court for appointment of a sole arbitrator as per Section 11(6) of the Act. The respondents however, challenged the petition contending that the said application is not maintainable, claiming that the petitioner has in actuality approached the court under Section 11(5), styling as if it was filed under Section 11 (6).
The Court distinguished that Section 11 (5) applies to cases where the parties have not agreed to a procedure for appointment of a sole arbitrator. Whereas, Section 11(6) applies to cases where the parties already have agreed to the procedure of appointment, but have failed to act accordingly.
Applying this distinction to the present case, where the parties had already agreed to a procedure, the High Court held that the petitioner’s application under Section 11 (6) cannot be said to be non-maintainable. The Court also made the following observation: “even if the petitioner has projected grounds in this Arbitration Request, under a mistaken notion that the mandate of Section 11(5) is to followed or has been satisfied, it would be of no real consequence, since it is the duty of this Court to affirmatively and conclusively determine if there is an agreement between the parties regarding the procedure for appointment of an Arbitrator and then to apply the correct and applicable sub-section of Section 11 of the Act.”
With respect to the arbitration clause that provided that the lessor would appoint the arbitrator in case of failure on part of parties to agree upon one, the court relied upon the case of TRF limited v. Engineering projects Ltd. [(2017) 8 SCC 377] to hold that neither a party to the disputes nor a person nominated by it can be appointed as an Arbitrator.
Leave a Reply