NDLI: Chennai Metro Rail Limited Administrative Building Vs. M/s Transtonnelstroy Afcons (jv) & Anr.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12 Referred Case 13 Referred Case 14
Case Type	Miscellaneous Application
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Others
Headnote	Issue for consideration: Whether revision of fee by an arbitral tribunal would terminate the mandate of the tribunal on the ground of ineligibility as per s. 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss. 12, 13 and 14 – Grounds and procedure of challenge – Failure or impossibility of the arbitrator or tribunal to act – Arbitration proceedings between the parties – Tribunal revised the hearing fee for each arbitrator fixed at Rs 1,00,000/- per session to Rs 2,00,000/- per session of three hours – Respondent paid the revised fee for five hearings – Application u/s. 14 by the appellant challenging the mandate of the tribunal that the payment of the disputed increased amount by one party, caused prejudice to the appellant and not be treated in an impartial manner by the tribunal, resulting in the tribunal to become de jure unable to perform its functions as required – Dismissal of the application by the High Court – Correctness: Held: Fixation of fee, is contractual, and wherever there is no prior arrangement or court order, the tribunal has to fix it at the threshold – Fee increase can be resorted to only with the agreement of parties; in the event of disagreement by one party, the tribunal has to continue with the previous arrangement, or decline to act as arbitrator – By insisting that the increase of fee should prevail does not amount to a per se ineligibility, reaching to the level of voiding the tribunal’s appointment, and terminating its mandate – Plea of the applicant that the concept of de jure ineligibility because of existence of justifiable doubts about impartiality or independence of the tribunal on unenumerated grounds or other than those outlined as statutory ineligibility conditions in terms of s.12(5), cannot be sustained – Grounds other than those mentioned in the said schedule, occasioning an application in terms of s.12(3) cannot be conceived – In case, applicants plea is upheld, the consequences could well be an explosion in the court docket and other unforeseen results – Skipping the statutory route carefully devised by Parliament can cast yet more spells of uncertainty upon the arbitration process – De jure condition is not the key which unlocks the doors that bar challenges, mid-stream, and should “not to unlock the gates which shuts the court out” from what could potentially become causes of arbitrator challenge, during the course of arbitration proceedings, other than what the Act specifically provides for – Direction to the arbitrators to resume the proceedings and decide the case in accordance with law. [Paras 33, 34, 39 and 40] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s. 12 – Grounds for challenge of an arbitrator – Determination of ineligibility of an arbitrator – Elucidated. [Paras 21-24, 28-31] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Expression ‘bias’ – Meaning of: Held: The Act has deliberately avoided an expression ‘bias’, instead the term used is justifiable doubts about the impartiality of an arbitrator, is an expression with many facets-subject matter bias; pecuniary bias and personal bias – Predisposition to decide for or against one party, without proper regard to the true merits of the dispute is bias – There must be reasonable apprehension of that predisposition. [Para 18]
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat
Neutral Citation	2023 INSC 932
Petitioner	Chennai Metro Rail Limited Administrative Building
Respondent	M/s Transtonnelstroy Afcons (jv) & Anr.
SCR	[2023] 14 S.C.R. 995
Judgement Date	2023-10-19
Case Number	184

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Chennai Metro Rail Limited Administrative Building Vs. M/s Transtonnelstroy Afcons (jv) & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

M/s. Voestalpine Schienen Gmbh Vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.

M/s. Canara Nidhi Limited Vs. M. Shashikala and Others

M/s Nandan Biomatrix Limited Vs. D 1 Oils Limited

Haryana Space Application Centre (harsac) & Anr. Vs. M/s Pan India Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited Vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation

Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Anr.

Balasore Alloys Limited Vs. Medima Llc

M/s. Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited Vs. Northern Coal Field Limited

M/s. Sundaram Finance Limited and Another Vs. T Thankam

Chennai Metro Rail Limited Administrative Building Vs. M/s Transtonnelstroy Afcons (jv) & Anr.

Chennai Metro Rail Limited Administrative Building Vs. M/s Transtonnelstroy Afcons (jv) & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

M/s. Voestalpine Schienen Gmbh Vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.

M/s. Canara Nidhi Limited Vs. M. Shashikala and Others

M/s Nandan Biomatrix Limited Vs. D 1 Oils Limited

Haryana Space Application Centre (harsac) & Anr. Vs. M/s Pan India Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited Vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation

Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Anr.

Balasore Alloys Limited Vs. Medima Llc

M/s. Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited Vs. Northern Coal Field Limited

M/s. Sundaram Finance Limited and Another Vs. T Thankam

Chennai Metro Rail Limited Administrative Building Vs. M/s Transtonnelstroy Afcons (jv) & Anr.