G.S. Kulkarni, J.:—
1. This is a petition filed under Section 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’), praying for the following reliefs:—
“a. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to terminate the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal;
b. this Hon'ble Court be pleased to substitute the present Tribunal with a new Arbitral Tribunal as per Clause 1.3 of the said contract;
c. pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct that all further proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal be stayed;
d. ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (c) above be granted in favour of the petitioner;
e. the costs of the present petition be granted to the petitioner;
f. this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant such further and other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case”
2. The issue as raised by the petitioner is on payment of fees of the Arbitral Tribunal and it is on such ground the above prayers are made that the mandate of the arbitral tribunal be terminated and a substitute tribunal be appointed.
3. It is not in dispute that the arbitration in question is an international commercial arbitration within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act which defines ‘international commercial arbitration’ as under:—
“2(f) “international commercial arbitration” means an arbitration relating to disputes arising out of legal relationships, whether contractual or not, considered as commercial under the law in force in India and where at least one of the parties is—
(i) an individual who is a national of, or habitually resident in, any country other than India; or
(ii) a body corporate which is incorporated in any country other than India; or
(iii) an association or a body of individuals whose central management and control is exercised in any country other than India; or
(iv) the Government of a foreign country;
4. Considering the provisions of Section 11(9) of the Act, the jurisdiction to appoint an arbitral tribunal in respect of international commercial arbitration, would not lie with this Court and is vested with the Supreme Court. Once at the threshold the Court lacks jurisdiction to make the very basic appointment of an arbitral tribunal in matters of international commercial arbitration, it cannot be assumed that the High Court nonetheless would have jurisdiction to appoint a substitute arbitrator. In my opinion, a cumulative effect of Section 2(f) read with Section 11(9) is certainly required to be kept in mind, when this Court is called upon to exercise jurisdiction under the provisions of Sections 14 and 15 of the Act.
5. Thus in the facts of the present case, this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant any reliefs as prayed by the petitioner.
6. The petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to adopt appropriate proceedings before the Supreme Court. All contentions of the parties on merits are expressly kept open.
Comments