LexCITATION INFOWARES LIMITED versus EQUINOX CORPORATION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I [2009] 6 S.C.R. 737 - j CITATION INFOWARES LIMITED A v. EQUINOX CORPORATION (Arbitration Application No. 8 of 2008) APRIL 20, 2009 B [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.] ~ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - s 11(5) - Appointment of arbitrator - Agreement between Indian company and foreign company - Dispute between parties - c Invocation of arbitration clause - Agreement clause that disputes to be referred to mutually agreed arbitrator and agreement to be governed as per laws of California, USA - ,.. Application u/s. 11 (5) for appointment of arbitrator before • Supreme Court - Jurisdiction of Chief Justice or his nominee D to appoint arbitrator - Held: Appointment of arbitrator uls. 11 (5) can be made by Supreme Court only if Part I of the Act is applicable to present arbitration proceedings - Disputes between parties is an international arbitration - One of the contracting parties is Indian party - Obligations under the E contract were to be completed in India - It is difficult to read implied exclusion of Part I in the language of arbitration - ~ clause - Thus, Justice R.C. Lahoti (Ex.CJ/) appointed as sole Arbitrator to arbitrate upon the disputes between parties - He would decide the procedure to be followed in arbitration F proceedings, sittings of proceedings as also settle his fees - However, law governing the contract would be of California. lndtel Technical Services Private Ltd. vs. W S. Atkins Rail ' .j. Limited 2008 (10) SCC 308; Bhatia International vs. Bulk G Trading S.A. 2002 (4) SCC 1051 and Venture Global Engineering vs. Satyam Computer Services Ltd. 2008 (4) sec 190, relied on. National Thermal Power Corporation vs. Singer 737 H 738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R. - ' A Company and Anr. 1992 (3) SCC 551, held inapplicable. Sumitomo Heavy Industries Limited vs. ONGC Limited ~ 1998 (1) sec 305, referred to. James Miller and Partners Ltd. vs. Whitworth Street B Estates Ltd. 1970 AC 583; Bay Hotel and Resort ltd. vs. Cavalier Construction Co. Ltd. 2001 UKPC 34; ABB Lummus Global Ltd. vs. Keppel Fels Ltd. 1999(2) Lloyds Law Report 24, referred to. c Case Law Reference: 2008 (10) sec 308 Relied on. Para 24 2002 (4) sec 105 Relied on. ·Para 21, 24 2008 (4) sec 190 Relied on. Para 22, 24 D . ' 1992 (3) sec 551 Held inapplicable. Para 13, 15 1998 (1) sec 305 Referred to. Para 9 1970 AC 583 Referred to. Para 24 E 2001 UKPC 34 Referred to. Para 24 1999(2) Lloyds Law Report 24 Referred to. Para 24 ~ .... F CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Arbitration Application No. 8 of 2008. Under Section 11 (5) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. G S.K. Bagaria, Ashok Jain, Pankaj Jain and Bijoy Kumar I " Jain for the Appellant(s). Krishnan Venogopal, Pragyan Pradip Sharma, Kanika Mehra, Udai V.S. Rathore and Dr. Kailash Chand for the H Respondent( s). CITATION INFOWARES LIMITED v. EQUINOX 739 CORPORATION ;... The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A V.5. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. This is an application under Section 11 (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The applicant M/s Citation lnfowares Ltd. is a company registered under the Companies Act carrying on business in United States B of America as also in Gurgaon, India through its establishmenU subsidiary. The respondent Equinox Corporation is also a company registered within the appropriate laws of United States bf America, having its office at 10, Corporate Park, Suit No.130, Irvine, CA-92606, USA. The Equinox Corporation has c been carrying on business in India through outsourcing. It is also carrying on business in India through its own establishment in India, Equinox Global Services Private Limite<;l (hereinafter called 'EGSPL'). The said EGSPL is a company registered under the Companies Act and has its office in Gurgaon. It is pleaded in the application that the respondent company D / ~ Equinox Corporation (hereinafter called 'EC') had entered into an outsourcing agreement singed in Kolkata, India with the applicant Citation lnfowares Ltd (hereinafter called 'CIL') on 09.02.2004 wherein the applicant was engaged as a service provider on terms and conditions contained in the agreement. E It was agreed in this agreement dated 09.02.2004 that CIL which had bagged orders from its client and since it had sufficient funds, space and existing infrastructure to execute the ,-. ~ projects and since it required expert manpower to p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.