AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 3435 ::2002 AIR SCW 4012 ::2002 (3) Arbi LR 486 ::2003 (1) Com LJ 42 SC ::(2003) 2 WLC(SC)CVL 383 ::2002 (5) SLT 547 ::2003 (1) UJ (SC) 40 ::2003 UJ(SC) 1 40 ::(2002) 50 CorLA 84 ::(2003) 1 CivLJ 142 ::(2002) 3 ArbiLR 486 ::(2003) 1 Mad LJ 51 ::2002 (7) SCC 736 ::2002 (4) RecCivR 573 ::(2002) 7 Scale 332 ::2002 (4) CurCC 97 ::(2003) 1 AllMR 352 (SC) ::2003 (1) All MR 352 ::(2003) 1 Mad LW 459 ::(2003) 1 JCR 39 (SC) ::2002 (4) SCJ 596 ::2003 (1) Cal LT 50 ::2002 (7) Supreme 113 ::(2003) 2 AllIndCas 169 (SC) ::2003 (2) AllIndCas 169 ::(2002) 8 JT 203 (SC)

Supreme Court Of India

Hon'ble Judge(s): R. C. Lahoti , J

(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act (26 of 1996) , S.11(6), S.14— Appointment of third Arbitrator - Conjoint petition under S. 11 (6) and S. 14 for relief - Not maintainable - The two fora contemplated by S. 11(6) and S. 14 are different. Conjoint petition under S. 11(6) and S. 14 praying for the relief to "appoint the third and presiding arbitrator to constitute the arbitral tribunal to adjudicate upon the disputes and differences between the parties', does not lie. The reason being that the petition under S. 11(6) is to be heard and decided by the Chief Justice or any person or institution designated by him while a petition under S. 14 the Act lies to the Court. It is settled that the Chief Justice or his designate does not discharge any judicial function under S. 11(6). The Chief Justice or his designate, though a Judge, does not sit as a Court. The two fora, contemplated by S. 11(6) and S. 14(2) are different, and therefore, no single forum can grant such reliefs as are contemplated by the two provisions.(Para 2) (B) Arbitration and Conciliation Act (26 of 1996) , S.11(3)— Appointment of @page-SC3436third arbitrator - Should be by the two appointed arbitrators - However, need not be in writing and need not be a joint deliberation by sitting at one place and takin....