M/S INDTEL TECHNICAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. versus W.S. ATKINS RAIL LTD.

M/S INDTEL TECHNICAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. versus W.S. ATKINS RAIL LTD.

Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applies to the dispute as there is no express or implied exclusion in the agreement, and the relevant clauses demonstrate intention to resolve disputes by arbitration; therefore, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(9).

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: M/S. Indtel Technical Services Pvt. Ltd.; Respondent: W.S. Atkins Rail Ltd.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
25 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Application / Application for Appointment of Sole Arbitrator Under Section 11(9) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Outcome
Petition allowed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Interpretation of Arbitration Agreement, Proper Law of Contract and Arbitration, Appointment of Arbitrator
Arbitration International Commercial Arbitration Jurisdiction Under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Interpretation of Arbitration Agreement Proper Law of Contract and Arbitration Appointment of Arbitrator

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M/S. Indtel Technical Services Pvt. Ltd.

Applicant

W.S. Atkins Rail Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Application / Application for Appointment of Sole Arbitrator Under Section 11(9) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clauses 13.2 and 13.3 of the Memorandum constitute an arbitration agreement under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
  2. 2 Whether this Court has jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act despite the choice of English law for governing the contract

Ratio Decidendi

Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applies to the dispute as there is no express or implied exclusion in the agreement, and the relevant clauses demonstrate intention to resolve disputes by arbitration; therefore, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(9).

Court Disposition

Petition allowed

Orders

  • Justice B.N. Srikrishna appointed as sole arbitrator to arbitrate upon the disputes between the parties set out in the application.
  • Arbitrator entitled to decide upon procedure, sittings, and settlement of fees.