Limited) Vs. Bharat Electronics Ltd.& ANR.  INSC 349 (30 April 2010)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 16
OF 2009 Denel (Proprietary Limited) .............. Petitioner Versus Bharat
Electronics Ltd. & Anr. ..............Respondents
Petitioner has filed the present Arbitration Petition under sub-section (6) of
Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred
to as "the Act"). It is prayed in the petition to appoint a sole
arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
1 2) The
Petitioner is a company wholly owned by the Government of the Republic of South
Africa, duly incorporated as per the laws of the Republic of South Africa, with
its main business address at Denel Head Office, Nelmapius Drive, Irene,
Pretoria, Republic of South Africa.
Respondent is a Corporation duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Pune, Maharashtra. It is a
Government of India Enterprise, Ministry of Defence, Government of India.
Petitioner - company had several internal divisions, one of them being Denel
Eloptro at the time when the contracts between Petitioner and Respondent were
entered into. The name of the said division was changed from Delnel Eloptro to
Denel Ptonics with effect from 1st April, 2004. The Optronics division was not
a separate legal entity, but was only a business unit of the Petitioner.
2 5) The
Respondent in the year 2004, placed certain purchase orders with Denel Eloptro
for supply of various electronic equipments which are listed as under:
PUR/PN/C1/621977 dated 28th July 2004
PUR/PN/CN/621973 dated 28th July 2004
PUR/PN/C1/622029 dated 11th December 2004 6) The `General Terms and Conditions
of the Purchase Order (Foreign) contains an Arbitration Clause. Clause 10 of
the Purchase Order, inter-alia, provides for arbitration in case of dispute
arising from the interpretation or from any matter relating to the rights and
obligations of the parties. It also refers to the appointment of the `Managing
Director or his nominee' of the respondent as the arbitrator. It is not in
dispute that the said Clause in the Purchase Order is a valid arbitration
agreement in terms of Section 2(b) read with Section 7 of the Act. The
Petitioner before the delivery of the goods to the Respondent as per the orders
placed by them entered into a credit insurance policy with one Credit Guarantee
Insurance Corporation of Africa Ltd. (hereinafter 3 referred to as "Corporation")
in respect of the said Purchase Orders.
petitioner states, that, it duly performed its obligations in terms of the
purchase orders and delivered the goods as ordered and the invoices were
issued. The said delivery of goods was also accepted by the respondent without
raising any objection. It is further stated, that, as the goods were accepted
and utilized, the respondent was liable to pay the value of the goods in a sum
of GBP 34,894.75(Thirty Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety Four and 75
Pence Pound Sterling).
petitioner raised a demand with respondent for the aforesaid amount. However,
the respondent vide letter dated 4th May 2005, refused to pay the said amount,
only on the ground that it is a "Government Company" under the
Ministry of Defence, Government of India and in view of the direction issued by
the Ministry to withhold payment of the said invoices, it is unable to settle
the amounts due to the petitioner.
4 9) The
Insurance Corporation also requested, vide its letter dated 29th May 2006, to
pay the amount raised against them. The respondent by its reply letter dated
8th June 2006 addressed to the Corporation - insurer, inter alia contended,
that, as per the guide- lines issued by the Ministry of Defence, Government of
India, to discontinue dealings with M/s DENEL (PYT) LTD., and withhold payment
due if any, it is unable to satisfy its liability to the petitioner.
Petitioner through its Advocate addressed a letter dated 29th November, 2006,
inter-alia, requesting them to make payments towards three Purchase Orders -
PUR/PN/CI/621977 dated 28.07.2004, PUR/PN/CN/621973 dated 28.07.2004 and
PUR/PN/CI/622029 dated 11.12.2004.
respondent through its Advocates and Solicitors, vide their letter dated 18th
December, 2006, though admitted their liability towards the aforesaid Purchase
Orders, refuse to settle the amounts due only on the ground, that, they are
prohibited from making any payments to the petitioner by the Ministry of
Defence, 5 Government of India vide its letter/communication dated 21st April,
petitioner was constrained to issue notice dated 30th May, 2009 to the
respondent which was served on the respondent and its Managing Director through
fax on 30th May 2009 and through speed post and courier on 2nd June 2009 and
6th June 2009, respectively. In the said notice, the petitioner cited Clause 10
of the General Terms and Conditions of the Purchase Orders which provides for
reference of disputes to arbitration and accordingly requested the respondent,
to refer the disputes for adjudication in accordance with Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996. It was also stated, that, since the arbitration clause
provides only for the appointment of Managing Director or his nominee, instead
of mutually agreed independent arbitrator, the said clause is invalid and
accordingly requested the respondent for appointment of mutually agreed
independent arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes which have arisen between the
petitioner and respondent.
response to the notice issued by the petitioner, the respondent by its letter
dated 24th June 2009 for the first time 6 disputed its liability for the
payment of the amount demanded by the petitioner. It was also stated, that the
names proposed by the petitioner for the appointment of the arbitrator was not
acceptable, as Clause 10 of the General Terms and Conditions of the Purchase
Order does not permit the same and, further they are not willing to refer the
dispute to the arbitrator, since the direction issued by the Ministry of
defence is in full force and effect, and they are protected under Section 56 of
Contract Act, 1872.
the light of the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has invoked the
jurisdiction of this Court by filing the petition under Section 11(6) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, to appoint an arbitrator to resolve the
dispute between the parties.
service of the notice, the parties have exchanged their pleadings.
learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Sri V. Giri would submit, that, in
view of the specific clause for referring the 7 disputes between the parties
for arbitration, the respondent was not justified in refusing to refer the
dispute to sole independent arbitrator on the only ground, that, they are
prohibited from making any payment to the petitioner by the Ministry of
Defence, Government of India. It is further contended, that, Clause-10 of the
Purchase Order provides for referral of disputes between the parties to the
Managing Director or his nominee and since the Managing Director being the
appointee of the Central Government, the petitioner genuinely apprehends that
it may not get any justice in the hands of the Managing Director, since he
cannot go against the directions issued by the Ministry of Defence, Government
of India and, therefore, it would be appropriate to appoint independent sole
arbitrator. In aid of his submission, reliance is placed on the observations
made by this Court in the case of [(2009) 8 SCC 520]. At paras 34 to 37, this
Court has observed as under:
The fact that the named arbitrator is an employee of one of the parties is not
ipso facto a ground to raise a presumption of bias or partiality or lack of
independence on his part. There can however be a justifiable apprehension about
the independence or 8 impartiality of an employee arbitrator, if such person
was the controlling or dealing authority in regard to the subject contract or
if he is a direct subordinate (as contrasted from an officer of an inferior
rank in some other Department) to the officer whose decision is the
subject-matter of the dispute.
however the named arbitrator though a senior officer of the Government/statutory
body/government company, had nothing to do with the execution of the subject
contract, there can be no justification for anyone doubting his independence or
impartiality, in the absence of any specific evidence. Therefore, senior
officer(s) (usually Heads of Department or equivalent) of a
Government/statutory corporation/public sector undertaking, not associated with
the contract, are considered to be independent and impartial and are not barred
from functioning as arbitrators merely because their employer is a party to the
position may be different where the person named as the arbitrator is an
employee of a company or body or individual other than the State and its
example, if the Director of a private company (which is a party to the
arbitration agreement), is named as the arbitrator, there may be a valid and
reasonable apprehension of bias in view of his position and interest, and he
may be unsuitable to act as an arbitrator in an arbitration involving his
company. If any circumstance exists to create a reasonable apprehension about
the impartiality or independence of the agreed or named arbitrator, then the
court has the discretion not to appoint such a person.
Subject to the said clarifications, we hold that a person being an employee of
one of 9 the parties (which is the State or its instrumentality) cannot per se
be a bar to his acting as an arbitrator. Accordingly, the answer to the first
question is that the learned Chief Justice was not justified in his assumption
S.N. Bhat, learned counsel for the respondent would submit, that the petition
filed by the petitioner is premature, since respondent though stated in its
notice that there is arbitration clause in the Purchase Order which provides
for referral of the disputes to its Managing Director or its nominee, the
petitioner had suggested that the disputes need not be referred to the `named
arbitrator', since he is not mutually agreed independent arbitrator and,
therefore, there was no failure on the part of the respondent in responding to
the request made by the petitioner. It is further contended, that, in view of
Clause-10 of the Purchase Order which provides for appointment of the arbitrator,
only the `named person' in the Clause-10 can be appointed and, therefore, the
petitioner- company cannot request for appointment of independent arbitrator
for resolving disputes, if any, between the parties. The learned counsel relies
on the observations made by this Court in the case of 10 National Highways
Authority of India (NHAI), [(2006) 4 SCC 372]. It is stated in the said
the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that this is a situation
falling within the contemplation of clause (c) of Section 11(6) of the Act,
namely, that the institution i.e. IRC failing to perform the function entrusted
to it under the appointment procedure, I am not satisfied. Under the
appointment procedure agreed to under clause 67.3, each of the parties to the
dispute is required to nominate its arbitrator and the third arbitrator is to
be chosen by the two arbitrators appointed by the parties and he shall act as
the presiding arbitrator. Clause 67.3(ii) provides that in case of the failure
of the two arbitrators appointed by the parties to reach upon a consensus
within a period of 30 days from the appointment of the arbitrator appointed
subsequently, the presiding arbitrator shall be appointed by the President of
the Indian Roads Congress."
petitioner has prayed before this Court for the appointment of the sole
arbitrator. The petitioner has submitted, that, it is clear from the invoices
and the correspondence between the parties particularly dated 4th May 2005 and
8th June 2006, that the respondent has not disputed the liability of payment
due to the petitioner. Therefore, as the respondent now seeks to avoid the
payment of the amount due to the petitioner, there is dispute 11 between the
parties which requires to be referred for arbitration before the arbitrator.
Clause 10 of the `General Terms and Conditions to Purchase Order' does
constitute a valid arbitration clause as it shows the intention of the parties
to appoint an arbitrator and refer the dispute between the parties for the
arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. The wordings of Clause 10 are as follows:
All disputes regarding this order shall be referred to our Managing Director or
his nominee for arbitration who shall have all powers conferred by Indian
Arbitration and Conciliation Bill, 1996 for the time in force."
Section 11 of the Act provides for the appointment of arbitrators and
sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act under which the present petition is
before this Court reads as under:
Where, under an appointment procedure agreed upon by the parties, - (a) A party
fails to act as required under that procedure; or (b) The parties, or the two
appointed arbitrators, fail to reach an agreement expected of them under that
procedure; or 12 (c) A person, including an institution, fails to perform any
function entrusted to him or it under that procedure, A party may request the
Chief Justice or any person or institution designated by him to take the
necessary measure, unless the agreement on the appointment procedure provides
other means for securing the appointment"
Sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act provides, that, when the parties fail
to reach to an agreement as regards the appointment of the arbitrator, can
request the Chief Justice or any person or institution designated by him to
come to the rescue of the parties. Therefore, petitioner in the present case
has sought the appointment of the arbitrator by this Court so that the dispute
between the parties can be resolved.
the case of Datar Switchgears Ltd. v. Tata Finance Ltd.
Anr., [(2000) 8 SCC 151], this Court while considering the powers of the Court
to appoint arbitrator under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, cited the decision of this Court in the case of Bhupinder
Singh Bindra v. Union of India and Anr. [AIR1995 SC 13 2464]. It was held in that
case that "It is settled law that court cannot interpose and interdict the
appointment of an arbitrator, whom the parties have chosen under the terms of
the contract unless legal misconduct of the arbitrator, fraud, disqualification
etc. is pleaded and proved. It is not in the power of the party at his own will
or pleasure to revoke the authority of the arbitrator appointed with his
consent. There must be just and sufficient cause for revocation." The said
principle has to abide by in the normal course. However, considering the
peculiar conditions in the present case, whereby the arbitrator sought to be
appointed under the arbitration clause, is the Managing Director of the company
against whom the dispute is raised (the Respondents). In addition to that, the
said Managing Director of Bharat Electronics Ltd which is a `Government
Company', is also bound by the direction/instruction issued by his superior
authorities. It is also the case of the respondent in the reply to the notice
issued by the respondent, though it is liable to pay the amount due under the
Purchase Orders, it is not in a position to settle the dues only because of the
directions issued by Ministry of Defence, Government of India. It only shows
that the Managing Director may not be in a position to 14 independently decide
the dispute between the parties.
facts narrated by me would clearly demonstrate that there is a dispute between
the parties in regard to payment of certain amounts towards Purchase
Orders/Invoice. Since, there is a failure on the part of the respondent in
making appointment of an arbitrator for resolving the dispute in accordance
with the understanding of the parties which is reflected in the Purchase Order,
the prayer of the petitioner requires to be granted.
parting with the case, in my considered opinion, the decision on which reliance
is placed by Shri S.N. Bhat, learned counsel for the respondent, would not
assist him to drive home his point.
Therefore, in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case,
it would be in the interest of both parties and to do complete justice, an
arbitrator other than the Managing Director of the Respondent requires to be
appointed to settle the dispute.
For the foregoing reasons, the Arbitration Petition is allowed. Hon'ble Dr.
Justice Arijit Pasayat (Retired) is appointed as the sole arbitrator.
Arbitrator will be at liberty to fix his own remuneration and other terms and
conditions with regard to holding of the arbitration proceedings.
..............................J. [ H.L. DATTU ]
May 10, 2010.