KONKAN RAILWAY CORPORATION versus M/S. MEHUL CONSTRUCTION CO.

KONKAN RAILWAY CORPORATION versus M/S. MEHUL CONSTRUCTION CO.

The order passed by the Chief Justice or his nominee under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is administrative in nature, not judicial or quasi-judicial; such order is not amenable to the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. A refusal to appoint an arbitrator can be remedied by a writ of mandamus in the High Court for non-performance of duty. Observations or findings made in passing such an order by the Chief Justice or his nominee are not binding on the arbitral tribunal, which will decide objections to validity or existence of the arbitration agreement independently.

Parties
Petitioner: Konkan Railway Corporation; Respondent: Mehul Construction Co.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
21 August 2000
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition and Writ Petition / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Special leave petitions and writ petition dismissed.
Legal Topics
Appointment of Arbitrator, Nature of Order Under S.11(6) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Article 136 Jurisdiction, Remedy for Refusal to Appoint Arbitrator
Arbitration Administrative Law Constitutional Law Appointment of Arbitrator Nature of Order Under S.11(6) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Article 136 Jurisdiction Remedy for Refusal to Appoint Arbitrator

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Konkan Railway Corporation

Petitioner

Mehul Construction Co.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition and Writ Petition / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the nature of the order passed by the Chief Justice or his nominee under s.11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?
  2. 2 If such order is administrative, what remedy exists against refusal to appoint an arbitrator?

Ratio Decidendi

The order passed by the Chief Justice or his nominee under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is administrative in nature, not judicial or quasi-judicial; such order is not amenable to the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. A refusal to appoint an arbitrator can be remedied by a writ of mandamus in the High Court for non-performance of duty. Observations or findings made in passing such an order by the Chief Justice or his nominee are not binding on the arbitral tribunal, which will decide objections to validity or existence of the arbitration agreement independently.

Court Disposition

Special leave petitions and writ petition dismissed.

Orders

  • Order of Chief Justice or nominee under s.11(6) is administrative; not subject to Article 136 jurisdiction.
  • Remedy for refusal to appoint arbitrator lies in writ for mandamus before High Court, not Supreme Court.