M.M.T.C. LIMITED versus STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.

M.M.T.C. LIMITED versus STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.

An arbitration agreement providing an even number of arbitrators is valid under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 if it includes the appointment of a third presiding arbitrator; both parties having appointed their arbitrators, the third arbitrator is to be appointed as per Section 11(3) of the Act, failing which the Chief Justice must appoint under Section 11(4)(b); the requirements of Sections 7 and 10(1) of the Act are satisfied.

Parties
Appellant: M.M.T.C. LIMITED; Respondent: Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
18 November 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Bombay High Court Order Dated 28.6.96
Outcome
Appeal disposed of
Legal Topics
Validity of Arbitration Agreement, Appointment of Arbitrators, Machinery Provisions Under Arbitration Act, Interpretation of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Arbitration Law Validity of Arbitration Agreement Appointment of Arbitrators Machinery Provisions Under Arbitration Act Interpretation of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M.M.T.C. LIMITED

Appellant

Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Bombay High Court Order Dated 28.6.96

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an arbitration agreement providing for an even number of arbitrators is valid under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
  2. 2 Procedural consequences for appointing arbitrators where each party nominates one

Ratio Decidendi

An arbitration agreement providing an even number of arbitrators is valid under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 if it includes the appointment of a third presiding arbitrator; both parties having appointed their arbitrators, the third arbitrator is to be appointed as per Section 11(3) of the Act, failing which the Chief Justice must appoint under Section 11(4)(b); the requirements of Sections 7 and 10(1) of the Act are satisfied.

Court Disposition

Appeal disposed of

Orders

  • Chief Justice of the High Court to appoint the third arbitrator under Section 11(4)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
  • Direction given by Chief Justice of the High Court is substituted by this effect.