ANIL KUMAR versus B.S. NEELKANTA & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 6 S.C.R. 480 · Decided: 07-05-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

/ 
A 
8 
[2010] 6 S.C.R. 480 
ANIL KUMAR 
v. 
8.S. NEELKANTA & ORS. 
(Arbitration Petition No. 7 of 2008) 
MAY 7, 2010 
[D.K. JAIN, J.] 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: 
c 
ss. 2 (1 )(f) and 11 (5) and (6) - International commercial 
arbitration - Appointment of arbitrator - HELD: In order to set 
into motion the arbitral procedure, the Chief Justice or his 
designate has to examine and record his satisfaction (i) 
regarding territorial jurisdiction, (ii) that an arbitration 
0 agreement exists between the parties and (iii) that in respect 
of the agreement a live issue, to be decided between the 
parties, still exists - On being so satisfied, he may allow the 
application and appoint an arbitral tribunal or a sole arbitrator, 
as the case may be - In the instant case, from the material 
E placed on record by the parties, it appears that (i) there are 
disputes between the parties on the issues/claim raised by the 
petitioner and countered by the respondents, including 
whether the claim still subsists or has been extinguished as 
alleged by the respondents, which cannot be resolved without 
evidence; (ii) there is an arbitration agreement in Clause 41 
F of agreement dated 19th January 2004, to which the petitioner 
is a party along with the respondents - The arbitration 
agreement is in clear terms and brings within its ambit the 
disputes sought to be raised by the petitioner: whether there 
was a breach of the terms of agreement dated 19th January 
G 2004, which would be a matter in the realm of arbitration and 
this Court cannot go into that question; (iii) the issues/claim 
raised by the petitioner, on a mere assertion cannot be said 
to be a dead one without evidence to be produced by the 
parties in support of and rebuttal thereto, on their respective 
H 
480 
ANIL KUMAR v. B.S. NEELKANTA 
481 
stands, regarding rights and obligations of the parties under A 
agreements dated 19th January 2004 and 23rd January 2004, 
on allotment of 7 4% of equity in favour of I/CL and petitioner's 
right to nominate or being himself on the Board of Directors . 
of Varsha; and (iv). the arbitrator is competent u/s 16 of the 
Act to rule on its own jurisdiction, including to rule on any 
B · 
objections with respect to existence or validity of the arbitration 
agreement, on a plea being raised before him that he has no 
jurisdiction - Application allowed -
The sole Arbitrator 
appointed to adjudicate upon the claims/disputes raised by 
the petitioner. [Para 14-16] 
c 
Sukanya Holdings (P) Ltd. Vs. Jayesh H. Pandya & Anr. 
(2003) 3 SCR 558 = (2003) 5 SCC 531; SBP & Co. Vs. Patel 
Engineering Ltd. & Anr. (2005) 4 Suppl. SCR 688 = (2005) 
8 sec 618, referred to. 
-
Case Law Reference: 
(2003) 3 SCR 558 
referred to 
(2005) 4 Suppl. SCR 688 referred to 
para 10 
para 10 
D 
E 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Arbitration Petition No. 
7 of 2008. 
Under Section 11 (5) & (6) of the Arbitration and 
Conciliation Act, 1996. 
Rajiv Sawhney, Jyoti Mendiratta, Vineet Jhanji for the 
Appellant. 
F 
C.A. Sundaram, Ritu Bhalla, Dhruv Dewan, Monark Gehlot, 
Anandh Kannan, Roshini Musa (for Suresh A. Shroff & Co.) for 
G 
the Respondents. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
H 
., 
482 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010) 6 S.C.R. 
A 
ORDER 
D.K. JAIN, J. 1. This is a petition under Sections 11 (5) 
and 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 
'the Act') for appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudication of the 
8 disputes which are stated to have arisen between the parties 
to this petition. 
c 
2. Since the case has had a chequered history, it would 
be appropriate to narrate the background facts, giving rise to 
this petition, in detail: 
On 13th April 1998, the Andhra Pradesh Tourism 
Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 
"Corporation"), a statutory body owned and controlled by the 
State of Andhra Pradesh, awarded a lease in favour of one Ml 
D s Goldstone Engineering Ltd., presently known as Goldstone 
Teleservices Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Goldstone") for 
a piece of land for oevelopment of the existing Hotel Ritz as a 
"Heritage Grand" category hotel, as notified by the Department 
of Tourism, Government of India. 
E 
On 8th November 1999, Goldstone entered into an 
agreement with respondents No.1, 2 and 3 (hereinafter referred 
to as the "BSN Group") by which they agreed to execute the 
said project through a new company known as M/s Varsha Hill 
Fort Resorts Pvt. ltd. (fo

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.