M/S SHIVNATH RAI HARNARAIN (INDIA) LTD. versus M/S. ABDUL GHAFFAR ABDUL REHMAN (DEAD) BY LRS.

Citation: [2008] 4 S.C.R. 594 · Decided: 10-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2008] 4 S.C.R. 594 
MIS SHIVNATH RAI HARNARAIN (INDIA) LTD. 
v. 
MIS. ABDUL GHAFFAR ABDUL REHMAN (DEAD) 
BY L.RS. 
(Arbitration Petition No. 4 of 2007) 
MARCH 10, 2008 
[H.K. SEMA, J.) 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: s. 11 (6) -
c Application under, when venue for resolution of dispute in 
Singapore and UNICITRAL Rules to apply - Maintainability 
of - Held: Application not maintainable and is misconceived 
- Parties had mutually agreed to refer the dispute to arbitrator 
at Singapore who passed award - It was set aside by High 
D Court of Singapore with liberty to apply for fresh arbitration -
Hence, the Court at Singapore alone has jurisdiction over 
arbitral proceedings and all applications arising out of that 
agreement are to be made only in that Court. 
The parties by a mutual agreement agreed to refer to 
E the arbitrator SM for resolution of the dispute at 
Singapore. The UNCITRAL Rules were to apply, though 
the settlement agreement was governed by Indian Law. 
The arbitrator SM proceeded with the arbitration at 
Singapore and passed an award in favour of the applicant. 
F The respondent challenged the award. The High Court of 
Singapore set aside the award with liberty to the parties 
to apply for fresh arbitration. However, the applicant did 
not apply for fresh arbitration before the Arbitrator at 
Singapore but filed application u/s 11 (6) of the Arbitration 
G and Conciliation Act, 1996, for appointment of arbitrator 
before this Court. 
The question which arose for consideration b~fore 
this Court was whether an application under section 11 (6) 
of the Act was maintainable. 
H 
594 
.. 
\ 
I 
MIS SHIVNATH RAI H. (I} LTD. v. MIS. A. GHAFFAR 
595 
A. REHMAN (DEAD) BY LRS. [H.K. SEMA, J.] 
<>-
Dismissing the application, the Court 
A 
HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, the parties agreed to 
refer to the Arbitrator, SM for resolution of the dispute at 
Singapore. The Award of the Arbitrator was passed at 
Singapore. The Award of the Arbitrator was set aside by B 
the High Court of Singapore and, therefore, the Court at 
Singapore, which alone shall have jurisdiction over the 
... 
arbitral proceedings and all applications arising out of that 
' 
agreement shall be mad~ in that Court and no other Court. 
[Para 14] [598-F, G, HJ 
~· 
c 
1.2 Having mutually agreed to have the dispute 
referred to an arbitrator at Singapore, the applicant is not 
permitted to turn around and say that this Court could 
appoint an arbitrator. In the facts and circumstances of 
the case, filing of an application under Section 11(6) of D 
the Act, before this Court, is misconceived. [Paras 19 
and 20] [600-D, E] 
National Agricultural Coop. Marketing Federation India 
Ltd. vs. Gains Trading Ltd., 2007 (5) SCC 692-distinguished. 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Arbitration Petition No. 
E 
4 of2007. 
Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Vijay Hansaria, Pun it Dutt Tyagi for the 
Applicant. 
~ 
F 
T 
Kailash Vasdev, M/s. Pradeep Sancheti, Rajiv Agnihotry 
and Praveen Kumar for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H.K. SEMA, J. (1) This is an application filed under Section 
G 
11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short "the 
Act") for appointment of an Arbitrator. 
(2) I have heard Dr.A.M. Singhvi, learned senior counsel 
for the applicant and Mr. Kailash Vasdev, learned senior counsel 
for the respondents at length. 
H 
596 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 4 S.C.R. 
(3) The sole question that arises for consideration in this 
... .
A 
petition is as to whether an application under Section 11 (6) of 
the Act is maintainable? 
(4) In view of the order that I propose to pass, it may not be 
B 
necessary to recite the entire facts, leading to the filing of the 
present application. 
(5) Suffice it to say that contract Nos.2001-Sl/25, 2001-
..,. 
Sl/26 both dated 121h January 2001 and Contract No.2001-Sll/ 
41 dated 281h February 2001 were amended/modifi~d by way 
It"~
c of a common addendum No.1 on 2.3.2001. By an addendum 
t--
dated 2nd March, 2001 clause (ii) was introduced. It reads: 
"(ii) Settlement of disputes through Indian Arbitration 
Council, Delhi." 
D 
(6) The dispute having arisen and as agreed to by both 
the parties the matter was referred to one Mr. Samuel J. Marshall, 
who was agent for both the parties in the transactions and who 
also agreed to mediate between the parties. With the 
intervention of Mr. Samuel J. Marshal, the parties arrived at an 
E agreement to resolve the dispute b

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