Can a Contractor Challenge an Arbitrator's Appointment? Supreme Court Clarifies
SP Singla Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Another
Listen to this judgment
• 4 min readKey Takeaways
• A court cannot allow a contractor to challenge an arbitrator's appointment merely because it was made by designation rather than by name.
• Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot be invoked if an arbitrator has already been appointed as per the agreement.
• An arbitrator appointed by designation is valid under the terms of the contract, provided it allows for such appointments.
• Parties must raise any objections to an arbitrator's appointment before the arbitrator himself, not in a separate petition.
• The provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 do not apply retroactively to arbitration proceedings commenced before its enactment.
Introduction
The Supreme Court of India recently addressed the issue of whether a contractor can challenge the appointment of an arbitrator when the appointment is made by designation rather than by name. This ruling arose from the case of SP Singla Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Another, where the court clarified the legal principles surrounding arbitration appointments under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case Background
The appellant, SP Singla Constructions Pvt. Ltd., was awarded a construction contract by the State of Himachal Pradesh. The contract included an arbitration clause, which stipulated that disputes would be resolved by an arbitrator appointed by the Chief Engineer of the Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department (HPPWD). After the completion of the work, disputes arose, leading the appellant to request the appointment of an arbitrator. The Chief Engineer appointed the Superintendent Engineer of the Arbitration Circle as the arbitrator, following the terms of the contract.
However, the appellant later sought to challenge this appointment, arguing that the arbitrator should have been appointed by name rather than by designation. The High Court dismissed the appellant's petition, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.
What The Lower Authorities Held
The High Court ruled that the appointment of the Superintendent Engineer as the arbitrator was valid under the terms of the contract. It cited the Supreme Court's decision in Antrix Corporation Limited v. Devas Multimedia Private Limited, which established that if a party is dissatisfied with an arbitrator's appointment made in accordance with the agreement, their remedy lies in challenging the appointment under Section 13 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, not through a separate petition under Section 11(6).
The High Court emphasized that the arbitration agreement had already been invoked, and thus, the provisions of Section 11(6) could not be applied again. The appellant's request for an independent arbitrator was therefore rejected.
The Court's Reasoning
The Supreme Court examined the terms of the arbitration clause in the contract, specifically Clause (65), which allowed for the appointment of an arbitrator by designation. The court noted that the clause explicitly permitted the appointment of a person by designation, and thus, the appointment of the Superintendent Engineer was valid.
The court further clarified that the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, which introduced restrictions on the appointment of arbitrators who are employees of one of the parties, did not apply retroactively to the arbitration proceedings that had commenced before the amendment. The court emphasized that the arbitration proceedings in this case began in 2013, well before the amendment took effect.
The Supreme Court also highlighted that any objections regarding the appointment of an arbitrator should be raised before the arbitrator himself, rather than through a separate petition. This principle ensures that the arbitration process remains efficient and that parties do not circumvent the established procedures.
Statutory Interpretation
The court's interpretation of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, particularly Sections 11 and 12, was central to its decision. Section 11(6) allows a party to seek the appointment of an arbitrator if the parties fail to act in accordance with their agreed procedure. However, the court ruled that this provision could not be invoked when an arbitrator had already been appointed in accordance with the agreement.
The court also addressed the implications of the Amendment Act, specifically Section 12(5), which prohibits the appointment of an employee of one of the parties as an arbitrator. The Supreme Court clarified that this provision does not apply to arbitration proceedings that commenced before the amendment unless the parties explicitly agree to its application.
Why This Judgment Matters
This ruling is significant for legal practice as it reinforces the validity of arbitration clauses in government contracts that allow for the appointment of arbitrators by designation. It clarifies that parties cannot challenge such appointments unless they follow the proper procedural channels. The decision also underscores the importance of adhering to the terms of the arbitration agreement and the need for parties to raise objections before the arbitrator rather than seeking judicial intervention prematurely.
Final Outcome
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals by setting aside the High Court's order terminating the arbitration proceedings. The court directed the Chief Engineer of HPPWD to appoint an arbitrator in accordance with the terms of the contract and allowed the appellant to file its claim before the appointed arbitrator.
Case Details
- Citation: 2018 INSC 1149
- Court: In The Supreme Court Of India
- Bench: Justice R. Banumathi, Justice Indira Banerjee
- Date of Judgment: December 04, 2018