LexM/S. JAIN STUDIOS LTD. THROUGH. ITS PRESIDENT versus SHIN SATELLITE PUBLIC CO. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-
MIS. JAIN STUDIOS LTD. THROUGH. ITS PRESIDENT
A
v.
SHIN SATELLITE PUBLIC CO. LTD.
JULY I I, 2006
[C.K. THAKKER, J.]
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 137-Review of Order passed in
Arbitration Petition, its restoration-Petition seeking Permission to nominate
B
Mr. Satpal, retired Judge of High Court as one of the Arbitrators in accordance C
with UNCITRAL Model-Preliminary objection that review petition not
maintainable since the decision of Chief Justice of India or his nomir;ee under
section 11(6) appointing Mr. Pendse, retired Judge of High Court as sole
arbitrator is judicial and final-Prayer as to :1ppointment of a,.ffitrator was
made earlier and was rejected-Held: Order passed by Chief Justice of India
or his nominee under section 1 I (6) appointing sole arbitrator, is an Order D
covered by Article 13 7 and is subject to review, thus Review Petition is
maintainable-Once prayer to appoint arbitrator was refused in arbitration
petition, it cannot be sought by indirect method by filing review petition-It
is not rehearing of the original matter-Power of review is to be exercised
with extreme care, caution and circumspection and only in exceptional cases- E
Prayer for clarification of Order as to stand taken by applicant granted-
However, reconsideration of the Order and nomination of arbitrator rejected-
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996-Section 11 (6).
SBP & Company v. Patel Engineering Ltd, [2005) 8 SCC 618, referred
to.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Review Petition (Civil) (D) No.
5970 of 2006
(Under Article 137 of the Constitution of India).
IN
Arbitration Petition No. I of 2005.
K.N. Bhat, Ugra Shankar Prasad for the Petitioner.
409
F
G
H
410
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A
Nikhil Nayyar for the Respondent.
The Order of the Court was delivered by
C.K. THAKKER, J. The present review petition is filed against an
order dated January 31, 2006 passed in Arbitration Petition No. I of 2005, in
B Shin Satellite Public Co. ltd v. Mis Jain Studios ltd., [2006) 2 SCC 628. The
prayer is to review the said order and restore the Arbitration Petition to the
file for reconsideration. A further prayer is made to permit the applicant to
nominate Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satpal, Retd. Judge, High Court of Punjab and
Haryana as one of the arbitrators.
c
Notice was issued by me on May 4, 2006 by making it returnable on
May 11, 2006. On returnable date, the parties were heard.
It is not necessary to narrate the facts in detail in the present review
petition since they had been stated in the main order. It was submitted by the
D learned counsel for the applicant that there were two obvious errors in the
order wherein it was observed as if the applicant (respondent in the Arbitration
Petition) submitted that arbitration may be held in London or in Singapore
where arbitration proceedings were going on between the parties and the
applicant had no objection if the matter was referred to arbitration in London
or in Singapore.
E
On merits, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant
that the dispute between the parties under the agreement was to be finally
resolved by arbitration under the rules of UNCITRAL. Article 5 relates to
composition of arbitral tribunal and provides that if the parties had not
F previously agreed to the number of arbitrators and if within fifteen days after
the receipt by the respondent of the notice of arbitration, the parties had not
agreed that there should be only one arbitrator, three arbitrators should be
appointed. According to the applicant, Shin Satellite, through its advocate,
served a notice and called upon the applicant herein to appoint an arbitrator
but no appointment was made by the applicant. On that eventuality, submitted
G the counsel, three arbitrators ought to have been appointed. It is not disputes
that the applicant contested the matter urging that there was no legal and
valid arbitration agreement between the parties. It is also not disputed that in
the light of the objection by the applicant herein, an application was made by
Shin Satellite to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for appointment of
H arbitrator under sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Arbitration and
JAIN STUDIOS LTD. THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT''· SHIN SATELLITE PUBLIC CO.LTD [THAKKER, J] 4 J J
Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Act' for short) and as a nominee of the Hon'ble the A
Chief Justice of India, by an order dated JanuaryExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.