HARBANS SINGH TULI AND SONS BUILDERS PVT. LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA

HARBANS SINGH TULI AND SONS BUILDERS PVT. LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA

Court appointment of arbitrator is not valid where the contract provides for appointment by named authority, and there was no negligence or refusal by the authority. Section 8 of the Arbitration Act does not apply in such cases; proper process was followed by the respondent in appointing successive arbitrators. The court's appointment caused prejudice and was rightly set aside.

Parties
Petitioner: HARBANS SINGH TULi AND SONS BUILDERS PVT. LTD.; Respondent: UNION OF INDIA
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 February 1992
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (civil) / Final Disposition by Supreme Court
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Appointment of Arbitrator, Arbitration Clause in Contract, Applicability of Section 8 Arbitration Act, Revocation of Arbitrator's Appointment, Territorial Jurisdiction
Arbitration Appointment of Arbitrator Arbitration Clause in Contract Applicability of Section 8 Arbitration Act Revocation of Arbitrator's Appointment Territorial Jurisdiction

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HARBANS SINGH TULi AND SONS BUILDERS PVT. LTD.

Petitioner

UNION OF INDIA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (civil) / Final Disposition by Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Section 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 applies to the appointment of arbitrators under the contract.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court had territorial jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator.
  3. 3 Whether the appointment of an arbitrator by the court was valid where contract provided for appointment by named authority.

Ratio Decidendi

Court appointment of arbitrator is not valid where the contract provides for appointment by named authority, and there was no negligence or refusal by the authority. Section 8 of the Arbitration Act does not apply in such cases; proper process was followed by the respondent in appointing successive arbitrators. The court's appointment caused prejudice and was rightly set aside.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • Special Leave Petition is dismissed
  • Appointment of arbitrator by trial court set aside