LexM/S INDTEL TECHNICAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. versus W.S. ATKINS RAIL LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
__ f1.< f [2008] 12 S.C.R. 673 ~ ~ M/S. INDTEL TECHNICAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. A '; II. W.S. ATKINS RAIL LTD. (Arbitration Application No.16 of 2006) AUGUST 25, 2008 B )' [Al TAMAS KABIR, J] Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996: ss. 2(f) and 11 (9) - International commercial arbitration - Appointment of arbitrator - Relevant clause of the contract c stipulating validity and performance of agreement to be governecf by laws of England and Wales, and all disputes and differences which could not be settled amicably by parties, to be referred to adjudication - HELD: Though law governing the agreement would ordinarily be the same as law governing D the contract, in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court* provisions of Part I of the Act would be equally applicable to I International Commercial arbitration held outside India, unless any of the said provisions are excluded by agreement between parties expressly or by implication, which is not so in the instant E case - Furthermore, from wording of the relevant clause of agreement, for the purpose of instant application, parties intended to have their disputes resolved by arbitration - Application allowed - Sole arbitrator appointed who will be entitled to decide upon procedure to be adopted in arbitral __ ..., proceedings and sittings of arbitral proceedings. F Words and Phrases: "Adjudication" - Connotation of in the context of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. *Bhatia International vs. Bulk Trading S.A 2002(2) SCR G ' -1 411= 2002 (4) sec 105 - relied on. National Thermal Power Corporation vs. Singer Company & Anr. 1992(3) SCR 106=1992 (3) sec 551; 673 H 674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R. A Jagdish Chander v. Ramesh Chander 2007 (5) SCC 719; ITC Classic Finance Ltd. vs. Grapco Mining and Co. Ltd. AIR 1997 Cal. 397; and Teamco Private Ltd. vs. TM. S. Mani AIR 1967 Cal. 168 - referred to. Naviera Amazonica Peruana S.A. vs. Compania 8 internacional De Seguros Del Peru, Lloyd's Law Reports 1988 (Vol.I) 116; and. Lesotho Highlands Development Authority vs. lnpregilo SpA, 2005 UKHL 43 - referred to. c D E F Case Law Reference: 2002(2) SCR 411 1992(3) SCR 106 relied on para 6 referred to. Para 10 Lloyd's Law. Reports 1988 (Vol.I) 116 referred to para 16 2007(5) SCR 720 referred to para 19 AIR 1997 Cal. 397 referred to para 20 AIR 1967 Cal. 168 referred to para 20 2005 UKHL 43 referred to para 23 ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION: Arbitration Application No. 16 of 2006 · Ramesh Babu M.R. for the Appellant. Prag P. Tripathi, Kum Kum Sen, Rajiv Kumar and Arati Gupta (for M/s. Rajinder Narain & Co.) for the Respondents. The Order of the Court was delivered by 1. By a Memorandum of Understanding, hereinafter referred to as "the Memorandum", entered into between the appellant and the respondent on 11th June, 2002, the parties G agreed to collaborate on an exclusive basis for jointly preparing and submitting their tender for work associated with the designing, manufacturing, supply, installation, test and commissioning contract for the Indian Railways Crashworthiness Project. Pursuant thereto the parties jointly prepared and H submitted a tender signed by both the parties on 30.9.2002 ir; )-- . ., MIS. INDTEL TECHNICAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. 675 v. W.S. /\TKINS RAIL LTD. response to a bid invitation by RITES Limited, a Public Sector A Undertaking of the Ministry of Railways, on 30.9.2002. 2. After submission of such bid the parties were invited to call upon the respondent on 29.10.2002 for contract negotiation in India, but without any valid or justifiable reason the respondent terminated the Memorandum on 12.11.2002 and on 15.11.2002 8 unilaterally withdrew the joint bid submitted to RITES without any reference to the applicant. According to the applicant, some of the other terms of the Memorandum dated 11.6.2002 were also breached by the respondent which impelled the applicant to address a letter to the respondent on 23.6.2003 calling upon C it to explain the various defaults committed by it. A request was also made to the respondent to enter into a dialogue to work out the fair level of compensation for the losses suffered by the applicant on account of such breach. The allegations contained in the letter were denied by the respondent by its reply dated D 20.8.2003. Several letters were thereafter exchanged between the parties culminating in a legal notice bei
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.