Central Organisation For Railway Electrification v. ECI SPIC SMO MCML

Message

show

Central Organisation For Railway Electrification v. ECI SPIC SMO MCML

This case will determine whether a person who is ineligible to be an arbitrator can nominate another person to be an arbitrator.

Petitioners Arguments

The referral order does not contain appellant's arguments.

Responders Arguments

The referral order does not contain respondent's arguments.

Last Listed On

2024-11-08

Start Date

2021-01-11

End Date

2024-11-08

Card Stage Date

2024-11-08

Review Petition No

C.A. No. 9486-9487/ 2019

Case Status

Archive

Bench Status

Constituted

Subject Matter

Arbitration

Comment

NA

Disposal Time

3 years, 9 months, 29 days

5 Judge Bench

Judgment delivered

Consider As Stage Of Pendency

false

Date of institution of case

Date of reference to 5 Judge Bench

Judgement pronounced

The Central Organisation for Railway Electrification (CORE) terminated its contract with ECL-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV) on the grounds that the JV failed to fulfill its contractual obligations. The JV challenged the termination at the Allahabad High Court. Since the parties had a General Conditions of Contract (GCC), which included an arbitration clause, the High Court directed the parties to resolve the dispute through arbitration. The GCC provided for the creation of an arbitration tribunal comprising three members. As per its terms, CORE would nominate four people, out of which the JV would choose 2 nominees and forward their names to the CORE’s General Manager. The Manager was then entitled to appoint the third arbitrator. In contravention of the GCC terms, the JV approached the Allahabad High Court for appointment of a sole arbitrator. On January 3rd, 2019, the HC appointed a retired judge as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute. CORE appealed against the decision before the Supreme Court of India. On 17-12-2019 , a 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that the GM could not appoint an arbitrator, since he himself was ineligible to be one. Another 3-judge bench in Union of India v. M/s. Tantia Constructions disagreed with the decision of the aforementioned bench and referred the matter to a 5-judge bench on 11-01-2021.

Can a person who is ineligible to be an arbitrator in a dispute nominate another person to be an arbitrator?

Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

The Supreme Court in Tantia Constructions (supra) referred the matter to a five judge Bench because it was of the view that once the appointing authority itself is incapacitated from referring the matter to arbitration, it does not then follow that notwithstanding this yet appointments may be valid depending on the facts of the case.

Central Organisation For Railway Electrification v. M/S ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company

M/S Conarch Associates v. M/S Ircon International Ltd.

Date Of Institution Start

2020-12-22

Case No

SLP(C) No. 15936/2020

Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. JMC Atepl Joint Venture

Date Of Institution Start

2021-04-12

Case No

SLP(C) No. 6125/2021

JSW Steel Ltd. v. South Western Railway

Date Of Institution Start

2022-05-16

Case No

SLP(C) No. 9462/2022

M/S Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. Ram Kumar

Date Of Institution Start

2023-09-20

Case No

SLP(C) No. 21131 /2023

The sealed fate of Unilateral Arbitrator appointment clauses in public-private contracts in India: Analysis of the Constitution Bench Judgment in: Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. M/s ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV)

Source Of Info

Lexology

Date Of Fr

2024-11-12