ANTRIX CORP. LTD. versus DEVAS MULTIMEDIA P. LTD.

Citation: [2013] 6 S.C.R. 453 · Decided: 10-05-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 6 S.C.R. 453 
ANTRIX CORP. LTD. 
v. 
DEVAS MULTIMEDIA P. LTD. 
(Arbitration Petition No. 20 of 2011) 
MAY 10, 2013 
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI AND 
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.] 
A 
B 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - s.11, 13 & 34 -
Party to a dispute invoking the jurisdiction of the International C 
Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and appointment of arbitrator 
pursuant thereto - Entitlement of the other party to proceed 
in terms of s. 11 (6) in such a situation - Held: Where in terms 
of the agreement, the arbitration clause has already been 
invoked by one of the parties thereto under the ICC Rules, D 
the provisions of s. 11 (6) cannot be invoked again, and, in 
case the other party is dissatisfied or aggrieved by the 
appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of the Agreement, his/ 
its remedy would be by way of a petition uls. 13, and, thereafter, 
u/s.34 - On facts, in view of the language of the Arbitration E 
Agreement which provided that the arbitration proceedings 
would be held in accordance with the rules and procedures 
of the International Chamber of Commerce or UNC/TRAL, the 
respondent was entitled to invoke the Rules of Arbitration of 
the ICC for the conduct of the- arbitration proceedings - Once Ii' 
the provisions of the ICC Rules of Arbitration had been 
invoked by respondent, the proceedings initiated thereunder 
could not be interfered with in a proceeding u/s. 11 - Invocation 
of the ICC Rules would be subject to challenge in appropriate 
proceedings but not by way of an application u/s. 11 (6) -
Arbitration Petition uls. 11 (6) for appointment of Arbitrator, G 
therefore, rejected, but this will not prevent the Petitioner from 
taking recourse to other provisions of the Act for appropriate 
relief - International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Rules. 
453 
H 
454 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2013] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
The question which arose for consideration in the 
pn~sent arbitration petition was whether when one of the 
parties to a dispute has invoked the jurisdiction of the 
International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and pursuant 
thereto an Arbitrator has already been appointed, the 
B other party would be entitled to proceed in terms of 
Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 
Dismissing the petition, the Court 
HELD: 1. Section 11 of the Arbitration and 
C Conciliation Act, 1996 is very clear as to the 
circumstances in which parties to a dispute, and 
governed by an Arbitration Agreement, may apply for the 
!IPPOintment of an Arbitrator by the Chief Justice of the 
High Court or the Supreme Court. As is evident from the 
D relevant provisions of Section 11 of the Act, when any of 
the parties to an Arbitration Agreement fails to act in 
terms thereof, on the application of the other party, the 
Chief Justice of the High Courts and the Supreme Court, 
in different situations, may appoint an Arbitrator .. [Paras 
E 27, 28] [469-D; 471-B, CJ 
2.1. In the instant case, the respondent-Devas, 
without responding to the Petitioner's letter written in 
terms of Article 20 of the Arbitration Agreement entered 
into between the parties, unilaterally addressed a 
F Request for Arbitration to the ICC International Court of 
Arbitration for resolution of the disputes arising under the 
Agreement and also appointed its nominee Arbitrator. On 
the other hand, the Petitioner appointed its nominee 
Arbitrator with the caveat that the arbitration would be 
G governed by the 1996 Act and called upon Devas to 
appoint its nominee Arbitrator under the said provisions. 
As Devas did not respond to the Petitioner's letter dated 
30th July, 2011, the Petitioner filed the application under 
Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act. [Para 29] [471-D-E] 
H 
ANTRIX CORP. LTD. v. DEVAS MULTIMEDIA P. LTD. 455 
2.2. Once the Arbitration Agreement had been 
A 
invoked by respondent-Devas and a nominee Arbitrator 
had also been appointed by it, the Arbitration Agreement 
could not have been invoked for a second time by the 
Petitioner, which was fully aware of the appointment 
made by the Respondent. It would lead to an anomalous 
B 
state of affairs if the appointment of an Arbitrator once 
made, could be questioned in a subsequent proceeding 
initiated by the other party also for the appointment of an 
Arbitrator. While the Petitioner was certainly entitled to 
challenge the appointment of the Arbitrator at the instance c 
of Devas, it could not do so by way of an independent 
proceeding under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Ac

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