RITE APPROACH GROUP LTD. versus M/S. ROSOBORONEXPORT

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 266 · Decided: 16-11-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. MATHUR · Disposal: Rejected

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RITE APPROACH GROUP LTD. 
v. 
MIS. ROSOBORONEXPORT 
NOVEMBER 16, 2005 
B 
[A.K. MATHUR AND CHAMBER JUDGE.] 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6): 
Agency agreement between a Russian Company and a Singapore based 
C company/an agent in India-Agent company providing its services to principal 
company in procuring a contract for supply of helicopter against payment 
of commission-Payment of commission denied-Filing of arbitration petition 
before the Chief Justice of India for appointment of an Arbitrator-Held: 
Arbitration clause in the Agreement categorically states that dispute if any 
D arises, the same shall be referred to Arbitratibn Court established under the 
Chambers of Commerce and Trade of the Russian Federation-Thus, 
jurisdictio~ of Courts other than the Court so specified in the agreement 
ousted-Hence, Supreme Court can not assume jurisdiction to appoint 
arbitrator. 
E 
The petitioner, a foreign company, is represented in India by Austrian 
Trade Commission, New Delhi, carrying on business, inter alia, as an Agent 
of various foreign companies for negotiating and concluding contracts on their 
behalf in India. Mis. Federal State Unitary Enterprise/Russian Technologies 
was a Russian public sector company which later merged with the Respondent-
company ROSOBORONEXPORT. Mis. Russian Technologies approached the 
F petitioner for procuring orders in India for supply of helicopters to Border 
Security Force. The petitioner agreed to act as an Agent of the said Russian 
Enterprise, the pre~cessor-in-interest of the respondent. In terms of the 
written contract entered into between them, respondent was required to pay 
commission to petitioner in lieu of the service rendered by it. The petitioner 
G helped the respondent in procuring the contract from Border Security Force 
for supply of six helicopters. Respondent did not pay the commission, hence 
the petitioner filed an arbitration petition for referring the matter to 
Arbitrator. The Chief Justice of India has designated Justice A.K. Mathur, 
Chamber Judge for nomination of Arbitrator for disposal of the petition. 
H 
266 
RITE APPROACH GROUP LTD v. ROSOBORONEXPORT 
267 
The respondent submitted that Clause 6.2 of the Agency Agreement A 
provides that in case of dispute between the parties, they would resort to 
arbitration for resolution of their dispute and submit it to Arbitration Court 
to be established under the Chamber of Commerce and Trade of Russian 
Federation. Thus this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition. 
Rejecting the petition, the Court 
HELD: I.I. On 26.10.2005, a Seven Judge Bench of this Court in the 
case of Mis. S.B.P. & Co. v. Mis. Patel Engineering Ltd & Anr. has overruled 
B 
the judgment of five Judge Constitution Bench in the case of Kon/can Railway 
Corporation Ltd. & Anr. v. Rani Construction Pvt. Ltd. by holding that the 
order passed by the Judge on designation by the Chief Justice shall be judicial C 
order and not an administrative order. Therefore, the legal position as has 
been crystallize<I now is that the order passed by the Judge on nomination of 
the Chief Justice of India under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation 
Act shall be judicial order not amenable to any appeal (272-B, C, D) 
Mis. S.B.P. & Co. v. Mis. Patel Engineering Ltd & Anr. decided by the p 
Supreme Court on 28.10.2005, followed. 
2.1. In the present case, Clause 6.2 of the Agency Agreement 
categorically states that if any dispute arises between the parties then the 
same shall be submitted to Arbitration Court under the Chamber of Commerce E 
and Trade of the Russian Federation. Therefore there is a specific clause 
mentioned in the Agency Agreement as to which Court will have jurisdiction 
to try and dispose of the matter. In view of the specific provision specifying 
the jurisdiction of the Court to decide the matter, this Court cannot assume 
the jurisdicti~n. (274-C, DJ 
2.2. In view of the specific arbitration clause conferring power on the . 
Chamber of Commerce and trade of the Russian Federation, it is that authority 
which alone will arbitrate the matter and the finding of that arbitral tribunal 
shall be final and obligatory for both the parties. (274-EJ 
F 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Arbitration Petition No. 3 of 2005. G 
(Under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration Act, 1996.) 
Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sanjeev Sen and Praveen Swarup for the Petitioner. 
Dushyant A. Dave, Siddartha Dave and Ms. Vibha Du

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