BIPROMASZ BIPRON TRADING SA versus BHARAT ELECTRONICS LIMITED (BEL)

BIPROMASZ BIPRON TRADING SA versus BHARAT ELECTRONICS LIMITED (BEL)

Where the named arbitrator or their nominee is shown, from the facts, not likely to act impartially or independently, especially being an employee or subordinate closely involved in the dispute, the Supreme Court may in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11(6) appoint an independent sole arbitrator to secure impartial adjudication, overriding the named arbitrator provision in the agreement.

Parties
Petitioner: BIPROMASZ BIPRON TRADING SA; Respondent: BHARAT ELECTRONICS LIMITED (BEL)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Petition Under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 / Order on Appointment of Arbitrator
Outcome
Arbitration petition disposed of; Independent arbitrator appointed.
Legal Topics
Appointment of Arbitrator, Impartiality and Independence of Arbitrator, Interpretation of Arbitration Agreements, Administrative Law – Communication of Orders
Arbitration Appointment of Arbitrator Impartiality and Independence of Arbitrator Interpretation of Arbitration Agreements Administrative Law – Communication of Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BIPROMASZ BIPRON TRADING SA

Petitioner

BHARAT ELECTRONICS LIMITED (BEL)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Petition Under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 / Order on Appointment of Arbitrator

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court can appoint an independent arbitrator instead of the named arbitrator (CMD or nominee) under the arbitration clause in the contract between the parties?
  2. 2 Whether appointment of an employee/subordinate of the respondent as arbitrator violates the requirement of impartiality under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?
  3. 3 Whether purported appointment communicated after filing of petition is valid if not communicated prior?

Ratio Decidendi

Where the named arbitrator or their nominee is shown, from the facts, not likely to act impartially or independently, especially being an employee or subordinate closely involved in the dispute, the Supreme Court may in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11(6) appoint an independent sole arbitrator to secure impartial adjudication, overriding the named arbitrator provision in the agreement.

Court Disposition

Arbitration petition disposed of; Independent arbitrator appointed.

Orders

  • Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok C. Agarwal, Retired Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, appointed as sole arbitrator to decide the disputes between the parties on such terms as deemed fit by the arbitrator; sole arbitrator to decide all disputes uninfluenced by this order.