LexBIPROMASZ BIPRON TRADING SA versus BHARAT ELECTRONICS LIMITED (BEL)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 5 S.C.R. 743 BIPROMASZ BIPRON TRADING SA v. BHARAT ELECTRONICS LIMITED (BEL) (Arbitration Petition No. 19 of 2011) MAY 8, 2012 [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.] A B Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: s. 11 (6) - Appointment of arbitrator - Dispute between parties - Petitioner filing petition seeking appointment of independent and C impartial arbitrator - Respondent seeking appointment in terms of arbitration agreement which stated that in case of dispute the matter would be arbitrated by the Chairman and Managing Director (GMO) of the respondent or nominee appointed by him - Held: The Supreme Court has power to appoint a person other than the named arbitrator if the relevant facts indicate that the named arbitrator is not likely to be impartial - In this case, the petitioner had clearly pleaded that the named arbitrator is a direct subordinate of the CMD and employee of the respondent - CMD is the controlling authority of all the employees, who have been dealing with the subject matter in the said dispute and also controlling authority of the named arbitrator - Therefore, it would not be unreasonable for the petitioner to entertain the plea that the arbitrator appointed by the respondent would not be impartial - The CMD itself would not be able to act independently and impartially being amenable to the directions issued by the Ministry of Defence - In exercise of powers u/ss. 11 ( 4) and 11 (6) read with Para 2 of the Appointment of Arbitrators by the Chief Justice of India Scheme, 1996, Retired Chief Justice of the Madras High Cou.rt appointed as the sole arbitrator, to adjudicate the disputes that have arisen between the parties, on such terms and conditions as the sole arbitrator deems fit and proper - The sole arbitrator shall decide all the disputes 743 744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S.C.R. A arising between the parties without being influenced by any prima facie opinion expressed in this order, with regard to the respective claims of the parties. BSNL & Ors. v. Subash Chandra Kanchan & Anr. (2006) B 8 SCC 279: 2006 (6) Suppl. SCR 93; State of Punjab v. Amar Singh Harika AIR 1966 SC 1313 - relied on. Administrative law: Administrative order - Communication of an order - Held: An order passed by an authority cannot be :said to take effect unless the C same is communicated to the party affected - The order passed by competent authority or by an appropriate authority and kept with itself, could be changed, modified, canceled and thus denuding such an order of the characteristics of a final order - Such an D uncommunicated order can neither create any rights in favour of a. party nor take away the rights of any affected party till it is communicated. Laxminarayan R. Bhattad & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra E & Anr. (2003) 5 SCC 413: 2003 (3) SCR 409; Greater Mohali Area Development Authority & Ors. v. Manju Jain & Ors. (201 O) 9 sec 157: 201 o (1 O) SCR 134; Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Ors. v. Raja Transport Private Limited (2009) 8 SCC 520: 2009 (13) SCR 51 O; Dene/ F (Proprietary) Limited v. Bharat Electronics Limited and Anr. (2010) 6 sec 394: 2010 (6) SCR 784 - relied on. Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. Mis M. M. Rubber & Co., Tamil Nadu 1992 Supp.(1} SCC 471: 1991 (3) SCR 862; Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. AIR 1963 SC G 395 - held inapplicable. H You One Engineering ~~ Construction Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) (2006) 4 SCC 372 - Distinguished. BIPROMASZ BIPRON TRADING SA v. BHARAT 745 ELECTRONICS LTD. (BEL) Dene/ (Proprietary) Limited v. Ministry of Defence (2012) A 2 SCC 759; Union of India & Anr. v. MP.Gupta (2004) 10 SCC 504; National Highways Authority of India & Anr. v. Bumihiway DOB Ltd.(JV) & Ors. (2006) 10 SCC 763: 2006 (6) Suppl. SCR 586; Northern Railway Administration, Ministry of Railway, New Delhi v. Patel Engineering Company B Limited (2008) 10 sec 240: 2008 (12) SCR 216; RITE Approach Group Ltd. v. Rosoboronexport (2006) 1 SCC 206: 2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 266 - referred to. Case Law Reference: c 2009 (13) SCR 510 referred to Para 14 2010 (6) SCR 784 referred to Para 14 (2012) 2 sec 759 referred to Para 14, 20, 41 AIR 1963 SC 395 referred to Para 17, 25, 30 D 2006 (6) Suppl. SCR 93 referred to Para 17, 26 AIR 1966 SC 1313 referred to Para 17, 27 (2004) 10 sec 504 referred to Para 18, 34 E (2006) 4 sec 372 referred to Par
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.