SIEMENS LTD. Vs. SKYLAB (ASSAM) PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. I. Lahiri, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondent is represented by advocate Mr. K. Goswami. Since arguments on the maintainability of the Review application were advanced by the parties those arguments are being considered through this order. The Arbitration petition 37/2007 was filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Arbitration Act") for nomination of an Arbitrator by the Chief Justice. Interpreting Clause 9 of the Agreement dated 6.9.2011 it was declared that the unilateral appointment of Arbitrator by M/s Siemens Limited was unjustified as Arbitrator was agreed to be appointed jointly by both the parties. Consequently the Court quashed the appointment of Ms. Sudeshna Bagchi and ordered the parties to appoint the Arbitrator through joint consultation.

(2.) BEING dissatisfied with the order passed on the application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, this Review petition is filed for recall of the order dated 23.4.2010. Here the petitioner questions the jurisdictional competence of the Gauhati High Court's Chief Justice to entertain the Section 11 application by projecting that under Clause 9 of the agreement, the parties had agreed to conduct the proceedings at Kolkata.

(3.) MAKING a distinction on exercise of power by a Court and by the designated authority under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, the respondent in turn submits that in Section 11 application, the Chief Justice even while exercising judicial power, doesn't function as a "Court" within the meaning of sub -section (e) of Section 2(1) of the Arbitration Act and on this basis, it is argued that the review power under the Civil Procedure Code can't be invoked by the Chief Justice or the designated Judge, to re -consider an order passed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act.