Supreme Court Appoints Sole Arbitrator in University Software Contract Dispute. Parties jointly request retired judge as arbitrator; Court appoints subject to Section 12 declarations and Fourth Schedule fees.

  • 4
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Nirmal Software Services Pvt. Ltd., entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University on 20.10.2012 for web enabling and web services. The MoU was amended on 07.04.2016 to include Clause 3.5 regarding intellectual property rights transfer. The MoU contained an arbitration clause (Clause 12) providing for dispute resolution through arbitration at Aurangabad under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Disputes arose when the university kept a purchase order in abeyance. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court seeking mandamus for payment, which was dismissed on 18.09.2018 on the ground that the arbitration clause must be given effect to. The petitioner then filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court. During hearing, the petitioner's counsel agreed to refer the dispute to arbitration. The parties jointly requested appointment of Mr. Justice Pratap Hardas (Retd.) as sole arbitrator. The Supreme Court appointed him subject to declarations under Section 12 of the Act, with fees as per the Fourth Schedule, and directed arbitration at Aurangabad. The petition was disposed of accordingly.

Headnote

A) Arbitration Law - Appointment of Arbitrator - Consent of Parties - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Sections 11, 12 - Dispute arose from MoU for web enabling services containing arbitration clause - Parties jointly requested appointment of retired judge as sole arbitrator - Court appointed arbitrator on consent, subject to declarations under Section 12 - Held that arbitration proceedings to be conducted at Aurangabad as per MoU (Paras 1-5).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the dispute should be referred to arbitration in terms of the arbitration clause in the MoU

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Supreme Court appointed Mr. Justice Pratap Hardas (Retd.) as Sole Arbitrator subject to declarations under Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, with fees as per Fourth Schedule, seat of arbitration at Aurangabad. Petition disposed of.

Law Points

  • Arbitration clause in MoU
  • Appointment of arbitrator by consent
  • Section 12 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act
  • 1996
  • Fourth Schedule fees
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 lawtext (SC) (7) 130

Special Leave Petition (C) No. 30863 of 2018

2019-07-09

Abhay Manohar Sapre, Indu Malhotra

Nirmal Software Services Pvt. Ltd.

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeal against High Court order dismissing writ petition due to existence of arbitration clause

Remedy Sought

Appointment of arbitrator and reference of dispute to arbitration

Filing Reason

Dispute over purchase order kept in abeyance by university

Previous Decisions

High Court dismissed writ petition on ground that arbitration clause must be given effect to

Issues

Whether the dispute should be referred to arbitration in terms of the arbitration clause in the MoU

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner's counsel agreed to refer the issue to arbitration in terms of the MoU Parties jointly requested appointment of Mr. Justice Pratap Hardas (Retd.) as Sole Arbitrator

Ratio Decidendi

Where parties have agreed to an arbitration clause, disputes must be referred to arbitration; court may appoint arbitrator on joint request of parties.

Judgment Excerpts

The MoU contained an arbitration clause which reads as under : '12. ARBITRATION 12.1 All and any disputes and claims arising out of or relating in any manner to this MoU...' On the joint request of the parties, we appoint Mr. Justice Pratap Hardas (Retd.) as the Sole Arbitrator, subject to the declarations being made under Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996...

Procedural History

Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1413 of 2017 before Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) which was dismissed on 18.09.2018. Petitioner then filed SLP (C) No. 30863 of 2018 in Supreme Court. During hearing on 08.04.2019, petitioner agreed to refer dispute to arbitration. On 08.07.2019, parties jointly requested appointment of arbitrator. Supreme Court disposed of SLP on 09.07.2019 appointing sole arbitrator.

Acts & Sections

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 11, Section 12, Fourth Schedule
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Appoints Sole Arbitrator in University Software Contract Dispute. Parties jointly request retired judge as arbitrator; Court appoints subject to Section 12 declarations and Fourth Schedule fees.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against In-Laws in Dowry Harassment Case Due to Omnibus Allegations. The Court found that allegations under Sections 341, 323, 379, 354, 498A read with Section 34 IPC were general and lacked specificity, warranting quashing ...