Reliance Industries v. UOI

8/12/2019 Reliance Industries v. UOI

1/71Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 27 OF 2013

Reliance Industries Ltd. & Ors.

Petitioners

Versus

Union of India

.Respondent

J U D G M E N T

SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR,J.

1.This petition has been filed under Section 11(! of

the "rbitration "ct# 1$$# %ith a praer for

appoint'ent of the third and the presidin

arbitrator# as the t%o arbitrators no'inated b the

parties ha)e failed to reach a consensus on the

appoint'ent of the third arbitrator.

2. Petitioner *o.1 is a co'pan incorporated and

1


2/71Page 2

reistered under the pro)isions of the +o'panies

"ct# 1$,- Petitioner *o. is a co'pan

incorporated in +a'an Islands# /ritish Virin

Islands- Petitioner *o.0 is a co'pan incorporated

accordin to the la%s of nland & 2ales. The

Respondent herein is Union of India (hereinafter

referred to as 3UOI4!# represented b the 5oint

Secretar# 6inistr of Petroleu' and *atural 7as.

3. /riefl stated# the rele)ant facts are as under8

4. In 1$$$# UOI announced a polic9*e% :ploration

and Licensin Polic (hereinafter referred to as

3*LP4!. Under *LP# certain bloc;s of hdrocarbon

reser)es %ere offered for e:ploration# de)elop'ent

and production to pri)ate contractors under the

aree'ents %hich %ere in the nature of Production

Sharin +ontract. One of the said bloc;s %as /loc;

?0 (3/loc;


3/71


4/71Page 4

other Part fails to appoint an arbitrator %ithinthirt (0A! das of receipt of the %ritten reHuestto do so# such arbitrator 'a# at the reHuest ofthe first Part# be appointed b the +hief 5ustice

of India or b a person authorised b hi' %ithinthirt (0A! das of the date of receipt of suchreHuest# fro' a'onst persons %ho are notnationals of the countr of an of the Parties tothe arbitration proceedins.

00. If the t%o arbitrators appointed b or onbehalf of the Parties fail to aree on theappoint'ent of the third arbitrator %ithin thirt(0A! das of the appoint'ent of the second

arbitrator and if the Parties do not other%isearee# at the reHuest of either Part# the thirdarbitrator shall be appointed in accordance %ith"rbitration and +onciliation "ct# 1$$.

: 999999999999999 : 999999999999999: 999999999999: 99999999999:

00.1 The )enue of the sole e:pert# conciliationor arbitration proceedins pursuant to this

"rticle# unless the Parties aree other%ise# shallbe *e% =elhi# India and shall be conducted inthe nlish lanuae. Insofar as practicable#the Parties shall continue to i'ple'ent theter's of this +ontract not%ithstandin theinitiation of arbitral proceedins before a solee:pert# conciliator or arbitral tribunal and anpendin clai' or dispute.

00.10 E E E4

5. On >th"uust# A11# UOI ranted its appro)al to the

Petitioner *o.1 to assin 0A of its participatin

interest in the /loc;


5/71Page 5

Petitioner *o.0. On the sa'e date# i.e. > th "uust#

A11# Petitioner *o. 0 also entered into PS+ as a

part. Jurther# Petitioner *o.1 %as appointed as the

BOperatorC for /loc;


6/71


7/71Page 7

India# as its arbitrator and called upon the

Respondent to no'inate its arbitrator %ithin 0A

das of the receipt of this letter. Respondent replied

to this letter on 1st=ece'ber# A11# and

inti'ated Petitioner *o.1 that the 'atter is under

consideration and that 3the 6inistr needs 'ore

ti'e to respond and %ould do so b 01st 5anuar#

A1.4 In its letter dated nd 5anuar# A1# the

Petitioners pointed out to the Respondent that# 3the

PS+# the U*+ITR"L Rules and the Indian "rbitration

and +onciliation "ct# 1$$ K set a period of thirt

das for our 'a;in appoint'ent of an "rbitrator.4

*e)ertheless# as a 'atter of ood faith# ti'e for

no'ination of an arbitrator b the Respondent %as

e:tended until 01st5anuar# A1.

!.The Respondent# ho%e)er# b a letter dated ,th

5anuar# A1 addressed to Petitioner *o.1 called

upon the Petitioner to %ithdra% the *otice of

"rbitration on the round that the sa'e %as

7


8/71Page 8

pre'ature# 3for the reason that no BdisputeC has

arisen bet%een the parties to the Production

Sharin +ontract.4 It is note%orth that no ob@ection

%as ta;en %ith reard to Petitioner *o.1 bein the

onl part under the PS+ that see's to be raisin

the disputes.

10. Thereafter on ndJebruar# A1# Petitioner *o.1

replied to the Respondent# b a letter throuh its

ad)ocates# %herein it %as reiterated that there ha)e

been a lon standin contro)ers# differences

and?or disaree'ent as to %hether the contractorCs

riht to reco)er its contract cost is capable of bein

li'ited b the 7o)ern'ent# in the 'anner and on

the rounds as is souht to be done under the PS+.

It %as also stated that8 3Our client treats and

construes our letter under repl as our refusal

and failure to appoint an arbitrator.4

11. On 1th Jebruar# A1# Respondent %rote a

8


9/71


10/71Page 10

"nne:ure9I to the aforesaid letter listed so'e of the

issues that ha)e alread arisen bet%een the parties- %hich

are as under8

(I! 2hether the J=P i'plies a co''it'ent of the

contractor to produce particular or at a particular rateN

(II! 2hether the J=P i'plies a co''it'ent of the

contractor to do a series of de)elop'ent acti)ities

e)en if there is a difference of opinion bet%een the

7o)ern'ent and the +ontractor as to the efficac of

these acti)itiesN

(III! 2hether the J=P is re)ised pro tanto b 2P & /Cs

fro' ti'e to ti'e appro)ed b 6+N

(IV! 2hether the )ariation bet%een the costs

proposed in the J=P and the actual cost can be a basis

for disallo%in +ape:N

(V! Is the reco)er of cost related in an 'anner to

the esti'ates of production e)en if the costs are %ithin

the sanctioned budetsN

(VI! Is the reco)er of costs of facilities in an 'anner

10


11/71Page 11

related to the attain'ent of production esti'ates of

the J=P or the esti'ates of deposits or reser)oir

characteristicsN

(VII! 2hether the J=P %as a representation b the

contractor to produce at a particular rate or to produce

a particular Huantit for a defined period# %hich b

conduct beca'e a bindin contract bet%een the

partiesN

(VIII! 2ould the drillin of additional %ells result in

increased production rates?)olu'es.

(ID! =id the appro)al of the 2P & /Cs J AA$91A (R!

and A1A911 (/!Q result in a 'odification of J=PN

(D! 2ere the reasons i)en b the 6oP*7?=7M for

declinin appro)al to the 2P & /Cs for J A1A911(R!

and A1191 )alidN

(DI! If the ans%er to (ID! and (D! is in the neati)e#

%hat is the conseHuenceN4

13. On 1th "pril# A1# Petitioners *o.1 & filed

"rbitration Petition *o. > of A1 under Section

11


12/71


13/71Page 13

3to fulfil our obliations and to adhere to the ter's of

the PS+ and are in deliberate and %ilful breach of PS+

and ha)e thereb caused i''ense loss and pre@udice

to the 7o)ern'ent. ou ha)e also repeatedl failed to

'eet our tarets under the PS+.4 Thereafter the

specific instances of the breach ha)e been hihlihted

in detail. Jinall# it is recorded as under89

3In this reard# %e ha)e been instructed tostate that an such purported atte'pt tounilaterall ad@ust an a'ounts as threatenedor other%ise %ould be co'pletel illeal andconstitute a serious breach of the pro)isions ofthe PS+ and that our client reser)es all its rihtunder the PS+# the "rbitration "ct# and theU*+ITR"L "rbitration Rules if the 7o)ern'entatte'pts to proceed to i'ple'ent the

purported decision threatened or other%ise.4

14. The Petitioners b an eHuall detailed letter

denied the clai's 'ade b the Respondent on > th

5une# A1. In pararaph 01 of the aforesaid letter#

the Petitioners aain called upon the Respondent to

appoint an arbitrator forth%ith (%ithout raisin an

other procedural issues desined to dela the

dispute resolution process! so that the )ital pro@ect

13


14/71Page 14

underta;en b the parties is not put in @eopard on

account of the continuin uncertaint.

15. In its letter dated ,th5ul# A1# the Respondent

'a;es a reference to the letter dated nd6a# A1

addressed to +ontractors of the bloc; ?0

and to the letter dated >th5une# A1 %ritten b the

Solicitors on behalf of Petitioner *o.1 and stated

that the 6inistr had no'inated 6r. 5ustice

V.*. 'a be disposed of. "ccordinl#

the ".P. *o. > %as disposed of b this +ourt b an

order dated th "uust# A1. It %ould be

appropriate to notice here the rele)ant e:tract of

the order8

14


15/71Page 15

3/oth the parties ha)e no ob@ection to the"rbitrators no'inated b each other. Under thearbitration clause# the t%o no'inated"rbitrators are to no'inate the third "rbitrator.

In )ie% of the abo)e# in ' opinion# nofurther orders are reHuired to be passed inthis "rbitration Petition. The "rbitration Petitionis disposed of as such.4

16. On 1th 5ul# A10# Petitioner *o.1 addressed a

letter to 6r. 5ustice S.P. /harucha and 6r. 5ustice

V.*.


16/71Page 16

S"#$%&&%'(&)

1. I ha)e heard elaborate aru'ents# and perused

the %ritten sub'issions sub'itted b the learned

senior counsel appearin for the parties.

1!. 6r. Marish *. Sal)e# learned senior counsel#

appearin for the Petitioners has 'ade the follo%in

sub'issions8

I. R*) I(+*(-+%'(- C'$$*/%- A#%+-+%'(

20. It %as sub'itted that the present arbitral

proceedins relate to an International +o''ercial

"rbitration# as defined under Section (1! (f! of the

"rbitration "ct# 1$$. Ld. senior counsel pointed out

that t%o out of the four parties to the arbitration

aree'ent are based outside India- Petitioner *o.

bein a U.


17/71


18/71Page 18

onl one set of accounts# as opposed to three sets

of accounts# has to be 'aintained. Thus# accordin

to the sub'ission# the a%ard %ill affect the cost

reco)er under the PS+ and i'pact all the parties#

particularl Petitioners# eHuall. In the liht of the

aforesaid# it %as sub'itted that the Operator%as#

therefore# oblied to raise a dispute on behalf of all

the parties?Petitioners. This %as also 'ade clear in

the ".P. *o. >

22. Lastl it is sub'itted b 6r. Sal)e that the

Respondent itself has al%as understood and

accepted that the substance of the dispute is

related to and has i'plications for all the parties to

PS+. It %as also pointed out that the *otice dated

nd6a# A1 %as addressed b the UOI to all the

three Petitioners and that the no'ination of the

"rbitrator b the UOI %as %ith reference to notice

dated nd6a# A1.

18


19/71Page 19

II. R*) J"%&%/+%'( ' +* S"*$* C'"+)

23. 6r. Sal)e sub'itted that the parties cannot

confer @urisdiction on the Supre'e +ourt# it flo%s

fro' the fact that there is an international

arbitration. Me sub'its that the stand of the UOI is

inconsistent. On the one hand it has accepted that

this court has the @urisdiction to entertain the

petition# and on the other hand it Huestions the

assertion that this petition concerns an international

arbitration. It is further sub'itted b hi' that ".P.

*o. > %as filed in A1 on the pre'ise that the

arbitration bet%een the Petitioner and the UOI %as

an international arbitration on account of the fact

that Petitioner *o. is a co'pan incorporated

outside India. It %as pointed out that no dispute# as

to the 'aintainabilit of the petition# %as raised at

that ti'e. ".P. *o. > %as disposed of b this +ourt

on 'erits and not for the %ant of @urisdiction. *o

dispute %as raised to the effect that this +ourt has

no @urisdiction to entertain the petition# %hich %as

19


20/71Page 20

filed under Section 11(! of the "rbitration "ct#

1$$. On the basis of the abo)e# he sub'its that

the ob@ection %as raised b the Respondents that

Petitioner *o.1 is the onl part raisin disputes in

relation to PS+# and clai'in reference to

arbitration is an afterthouht.

24. 6r. Sal)e further sub'its that the contention of

the UOI that this +ourt has no @urisdiction to

entertain the present petition in )ie% of Section

11(! of the "rbitration "ct# 1$$# is 'isconcei)ed.

It is also sub'itted that Sub9section (! of Section

11 is sub@ect# e:pressl# to subsection (! thereof.

Section 11(! pro)ides that in case the appoint'ent

procedure areed upon b the parties is not

co'plied %ith# a part 'a reHuest the +hief 5ustice

to ta;e the necessar 'easures. The e:pression

3+hief 5ustice4 has been defined under sub9

section (1!(a! of Section 11 as the +hief 5ustice of

India# in the case of an international co''ercial

arbitration. In other arbitrations under Section

20


21/71Page 21

11(1!(b!# it %ould be the +hief 5ustice of the Mih

+ourt. It %as then sub'itted that a procedure

areed to b the parties for appoint'ent of

arbitrator(s! is sub@ect to Sub9section (!- it cannot

o)erride sub9section (! and pro)ide that in respect

of a do'estic arbitration# not9%ithstandin sub9

section(1!# the parties %ould onl 'o)e the +hief

5ustice of India# or )ice )ersa in the case of an

international arbitration. On the basis of the

aforesaid# it %as sub'itted that the contention of

the UOI that this +ourt has no @urisdiction to

entertain the petition under Section 11(! is

'isconcei)ed.

III. R*) N'+%/* )

25. Jurther# it %as stated that the 5oint Operatin

"ree'ent entitles the Operatorto initiate litiation

on behalf of all the parties. It %as also sub'itted

that it is sinificant to note that there is

inconsistenc in the stand ta;en b the Respondent.

21


22/71Page 22

On the one hand# Respondent clai's that the

arbitral a%ard %ould bind not 'erel Petitioner *o.1

but also Petitioners *o. and 0- ho%e)er on the

other hand# the Respondent insists that the

arbitration proceedins are onl bet%een Petitioner

*o. 1 and UOI. This stand of the Respondents has

been sub'itted to be contrar to the established

@urisprudence that an arbitral a%ard is bindin onl

on the parties to the arbitration.

IV. R*) A#%+-+' ' N*"+- N-+%'(-%+

26. 6r. Sal)e sub'itted that since the arbitration is

an international one# this court# in accordance %ith

the established international practise# should

consider appointin an arbitrator of a nationalit

other than the nationalities of the parties. In this

conte:t# it %as pointed out that the statute

e:pressl obliates the +ourt to e:a'ine the issue

of nationalit of the arbitrator )is99)is the

nationalit of the parties. It %as asserted that "rticle

22


23/71Page 23

00(,! of the PS+ is conclusi)e on this issue. It

pro)ides that if one of the parties fails to appoint its

arbitrator# the +ourt %ould appoint an arbitrator of a

nationalit other than that of the defaultin part. It

%as sub'itted that this clause indicates the

sinificance that the parties ha)e attached to the

neutralit of the arbitrators. A fortiori, the

chair'an?presidin arbitrator should be of a

nationalit other than Indian. The contention of the

UOI that absence of a pro)ision si'ilar to "rticle

00(,! of the "rbitration "ree'ent in relation to the

appoint'ent of the third arbitrator suests that

the presidin arbitrator could be Indian has been

sub'itted b 6r. Sal)e to be 'isconcei)ed.

27. It %as also brouht to our notice that the

U*+ITR"L Rules# in force at the ti'e %hen the PS+

%as drafted and entered into# reconised that %hile

the appointin authorit could appoint an arbitrator

of the sa'e nationalit as that of the defaultin

23


24/71Page 24

part (in the e)ent %here a part fails to no'inate

its arbitrator!# but the presidin arbitrator that has

to be appointed %ould be of the nationalit other

than that of the parties. The Petitioners states that

the PS+ pro)ides for e)en a reater deree of

neutralit than the U*+ITR"L b pro)isionin that in

case one of the parties 'a;es a default in

no'inatin its arbitrator then the arbitrator has to

be appointed fro' a neutral nationalit. It %as then

sub'itted that there %as no need of a si'ilar

pro)ision in relation to the presidin arbitrator since

the arbitration %as to be in accordance %ith

U*+ITR"L Rules. In this conte:t# learned senior

counsel relied upon the la% laid in A(+%

C''-+%'( L%$%+* Vs. D*-& M"+%$*%-

P%-+* L+1,%herein it %as inter alia held that the

reference to such rules (I++ in that case! %ould

include the process of constitution of a tribunal.

2. 6r. Sal)e also referred to the sub'ission of the

Respondent that the PS+ bein o)erned b the

1 2013 (7) SCALE 216 (Para 34)

24


25/71Page 25

Indian la% or?and that it in)ol)es the issues of public

polic for India as irrele)ant. The fact that a part

no'inee had to be fro' a neutral countr

establishes that the parties did not consider the

o)ernin la% of the contract to be of an rele)ance

to the nationalit of the arbitrator. It %as also

sub'itted that the trend of appointin presidin

arbitrator fro' a 3neutral nationalit4 is no%

uni)ersall accepted under )arious arbitration rules

as %ell as under the "rbitration "ct# 1$$.

2!. 6r. Sal)e also pointed out that "rticle 00 ($! of

the PS+ adopts the U*+ITR"L Rules for the

arbitration "ree'ent and that at the ti'e of

sinin the "rbitration "ree'ent the U*+ITR"L

Rules# 1$ %ere in force. 6r. Sal)e also referred to

"rticle of U*+ITR"L Rules# 1$. Me laid particular

stress on "rticle (G!.

30. It %as further 'entioned that the U*+ITR"L Rules

25


26/71Page 26

of A1A are no% at par %ith the procedure under

"rticle 00.,# e)en %ith respect to appoint'ent of

second arbitrator.

31. Relin upon the @ud'ent of this +ourt in

N'+*( R-%- A$%(%&+-+%'(, M%(%&+ '

R-%-, N* D*% Vs. P-+* E(8%(**%(8

C'$-( L%$%+*2, it %as sub'itted that the

sche'e of Section 11 e'phasises that the ter's of

an "rbitration "ree'ent should be i)en effect as

closel as possible.

32. Lastl# it %as sub'itted that the Respondents had

lost their riht to no'inate the second arbitrator in

the earlier round of litiation# i.e. ".P. *o. > and

hence# the Petitioners could ha)e insisted under

"rticle 00., that the Tribunal 'ust be constituted of

t%o non9Indian "rbitrators in addition to the

arbitrator appointed b the Petitioner. It is#

therefore# i'perati)e that the third arbitrator should

ha)e a neutral nationalit.

2 (2008) 10 SCC 240

26


27/71Page 27

R*&'(*(+9& S"#$%&&%'(&

33. 6r. "nil /. =i)an and 6r. =ushant ". =a)e#

learned senior counsel# appeared for the

Respondents. "t the outset# it %as pointed out that

the present arbitration petition has been filed under

Sections 11(! and 11($! of the "rbitration "ct#

1$$# read %ith "rticle 00. of the PS+. It %as then

sub'itted that the "rticle 00. of the PS+# unli;e

"rticle 00.,# does not reHuire that the arbitrator to

be appointed should be a forein national. The

learned senior counsel suested that the aforesaid

o'ission is both deliberate and sinificant. It %as

further sub'itted that the Petitioners# b choosin

not to ob@ect to the appoint'ent of 6r. 5ustice V.*.


28/71Page 28

behalf of the Petitioners to the Respondent# %herein

the no'ination of 6r. 5ustice


29/71Page 29

producti)e 'anner and in a ti'el fashion. The PS+#

therefore# has reat sinificance for the nation. It

%as also sub'itted that the entire sub@ect 'atter of

the contract is situated in India and hence# the

applicable la% is the Indian la% for both the

substanti)e contract and the "rbitration "ree'ent.

35. Placin stron reliance on the factual situation# it

%as sub'itted that the PS+# its interpretation# and

its e:ecution in)ol)e intricate and co'ple:

Huestions of la% and facts relatin to Indian

conditions and Indian la%s. It %as further sub'itted

that since the parties %ere a%are about the

aforesaid nature of PS+# the consciousl refrained

fro' ha)in the reHuire'ent that the third

arbitrator should be a forein national. Thus# it %as

sub'itted b the learned senior counsel# that the

issue relatin to the appoint'ent of the third

arbitrator has been left sHuarel to the t%o

no'inated arbitrators# and that the t%o arbitrators

29


30/71


31/71Page 31

3. The ne:t sub'ission of the Respondent is that

Petitioners *o and 0 ha)e not raised an dispute

under the PS+ at an stae. It is onl the Petitioner

alone that has raised the dispute and co'e for%ard

as the Claimant. To substantiate the sub'issions#

Respondents rel upon the follo%in docu'ents8

(i! Letter dated 0.11.A11-

(ii! *otice of "rbitration dated 0.11.A11-

(iii! Letter dated A.A1.A11 on behalf of

Petitioner *o. 1 b its solicitors.

(i)! Letter dated A.A.A11# on behalf of

Petitioner *o. 1 b its solicitors.

()! Letter dated A,.A.A1 of the Respondentto the Solicitors of RIL.

()i! Letter dated 1st"uust# A10 of 6r. 5ustice

/harucha# as per the Respondent sho%s that

the arbitration %as bet%een Reliance

Industries Li'ited and the 7o)ern'ent of

India.

3!. It %as also e'phasised that all the

co''unications anne:ed %ith the present petition

identifthe clai'ant to be Petitioner

31


32/71Page 32

*o. 1. It %as also hihlihted that the contents of

the letter dated nd 6a# A1 %ritten b the

Respondents# %hich inter-alia deals %ith

inad'issibilit of reco)er of costs has not been

disputed b Petitioners *o. and 0. Learned senior

counsel also relies upon the letter dated 1th 5ul#

A10# sent on behalf of Petitioner *o.1 b its

Solicitors to the "rbitrators. This letter %as sent

after the order dated th"uust A1

%as passed b this +ourt in ".P. *o. > of A1.

"ccordin to the Respondents this letter also sho%s

that the dispute is onl bet%een RIL and the

Respondent.

40. 6r. =i)an also sub'itted that Petitioners *o.

and 0 ha)e not confor'ed to "rticle 00 of the PS+#

for the purposes of in)o;in arbitration. Such non9

co'pliance cannot be considered as 'erel an

o'ission. In the liht of the aforesaid# it %as

sub'itted that Petitioner *o.1# an Indian +o'pan#

32


33/71Page 33

is the onl part to the dispute %ith the

Respondents and therefore# there is no need to

appoint a forein arbitrator. Jurther# it %as

sub'itted e)en if it is assu'ed that Petitioners *o.

and 0 ha)e raised the disputes in ter's of "rticle

00.# there is no Huestion of appoint'ent of a

forein arbitrator as the dispute raised is onl

bet%een t%o Indian parties# )i. Petitioner *o.1 and

the Respondents.

41. The ne:t sub'ission of 6r. =i)an is that Section

11(1! of the "rbitration "ct# 1$$ pro)ides that an

arbitrator can be of an nationalit# unless

other%ise areed b the parties. It %as sub'itted

that since the parties did not choose to ha)e a

forein national to be appointed as the third

arbitrator in "rticle 00.# the parties did not choose

to 'a;e Section 11(1! applicable to the'. Learned

senior counsel also pointed out that the parties

instead areed to proceed under Section 11(! as

33


34/71Page 34

the areed to appoint an arbitrator %ithout

reHuirin hi' to be of an forein nationalit.

42. 6r. =i)an then points out that Section 11($! has

been authoritati)el interpreted in M--&%-(

A%%(*& S&+*$& BHD II Vs. STIC T-*& :P;

L+.3 and MSA N**-( B.V. Vs. L-&*( A

countries. These countries include the countries

%hose nationals are souht to be no'inated b the

Petitioners. It %as further sub'itted that unra)ellin

all the countries in %hich Petitioner *o. 0 'a ha)e

a connection %ould be difficult# if not i'possible.

35


36/71Page 36

Thus# the )er ob@ect of neutrality, impartiality and

independence %ill be defeated b appointin a

forein national as the third arbitrator. On the

contrar# it %as sub'itted# appoint'ent of a for'er

@ude of this +ourt %ould be the 'ost suitable

arrane'ent.

44. In response# 6r. Sal)e sub'itted that8 (i! The

reliance placed b the Respondents upon the la%

laid in M--&%-( A%%(*& S&+*$& BHD II Vs.

STIC T-*& :P; L+. :&"-; and MSA

N**-( B.V. Vs. L-&*( < T'"#' L+.

:&"-; is 'isplaced as these cases are

inapplicable in the present case. (ii! The contention

of the UOI that nationals of the >A countries in

%hich Petitioner *o. 0 has operations %ould beco'e

ineliible to be appointed as arbitrators is

'isconcei)ed. In this conte:t# it %as sub'itted that

the "rbitration "ct# 1$$ and the related

international practices ta;es into account

36


37/71Page 37

nationalit but not area of operation. This

sub'ission of the Respondent# accordin to 6r.

Sal)e# is not tenable because it confuses the

Huestion of independence and impartiality %ith

neutrality. The aspect of neutralit is dealt %ith in

Section 11(>! and Section 1- %hereas# nationalit

is considered in Sections 11(1! & ($! of "rbitration

"ct# 1$$. Jurther# it %as sub'itted that these t%o

pro)isions %ould be rendered otiose if the

sub'ission of the UOI is accepted.

45. /efore partin %ith sub'issions 'ade on behalf

of the parties# it 'ust also be noticed that the

learned senior counsel for the parties ha)e

sub'itted a list each of proposed?suested

arbitrators- %hich accordin to the' %ould satisf

the reHuire'ents of the arbitration aree'ent

contained in PS+.

46. I ha)e considered the sub'issions 'ade b the

37


38/71Page 38

learned senior counsel for the parties.

47. I a' not inclined to accept the sub'issions 'ade

b 6r. "nil /. =i)an# learned senior counsel

appearin on behalf of the UOI. Initiall# "rbitration

Petition *o.> %as filed b Reliance Industries

Li'itedK RIL (Petitioner *o.1! and *i;o (Petitioner

*o.!. In pararaph of the arbitration petition# it

%as specificall a)erred as follo%s89

3The Respondent b its letter dated >th"uust#A11# ranted its appro)al to Petitioner *o.1 toassin 0A of its Participatin Interest underthe PS+ to /P# thereb also 'a;in /P apartner in the /loc;


39/71


40/71Page 40

the Operator on behalf of all the +ontractors#

na'el# Reliance# *i;o and /P.

51. I find 'uch substance in the sub'ission of 6r.

Sal)e that the contentions raised in the counter

affida)it reflect a 'isunderstandin of89

(i! the ter's of the PS+-

(ii! realit of the PartiesC co''ercialrelationship-

(iii! application of the "rbitration and

+onciliation "ct# 1$$- and

(i)! U*+ITR"L "rbitration Rules and the practise

of lare scale arbitrations in)ol)in forein

parties.

52. It is also not possible to accept the sub'ission of

6r. "nil =i)an that *i;o and /P are not operators

under the PS+ and# therefore# ha)e forfeited an

riht to operations under the PS+. It is also not

possible to accept the sub'ission that *i;o and /P

are not the parties to the dispute %ith the

Respondent. I a' of the considered opinion that

the pro)isions of the PS+ clearl identified the

40


41/71Page 41

parties to the PS+. The disputes that ha)e arisen

bet%een the parties are also clearl identified in the

correspondence e:chaned bet%een the parties.

The three na'ed contractorsare# in fact# freHuentl

'entioned in the correspondence bet%een the

parties. It has been correctl hihlihted b 6r.

Sal)e that the ter's of the PS+ ha)e to be

considered in the liht of the fact that the

Respondent e:pressl consented# after detailed

inHuir# to the assin'ent of participation interests

in the PS+ to /P. It is a 'atter of record that *i;o

has been a part to the PS+ fro' the beinnin.

Therefore# at9least at this stae# it %ould not be

possible to accept the sub'ission of 6r. =i)an that

/P and *i;o are not 3operating4 under the PS+.

53. I a' also unable to accept the sub'ission of 6r.

=i)an that i)en the nature of operations under the

PS+# the issues in)ol)ed thereunder are of public

la% and public polic. 6r. =i)an# on the basis of

41


42/71Page 42

the aforesaid sub'ission# has insisted that the third

arbitrator ouht to be fro' India. It %as pointed out

b 6r. =i)an that e)en if it is accepted that the

disputes raised b the Petitioner %ould also include

the disputes of Petitioner *os. and 0# the

arbitration still essentiall re'ains an Indian

arbitration. Such a sub'ission cannot be accepted

as the Respondents ha)e not at an stae earlier

raised an ob@ection that the disputes had been

raised b Petitioner *o.1 onl on its o%n behalf and

did not relate to the disputes of Petitioner *o. and

0 also.

54. In ' opinion# the sub'ission is 'isconcei)ed

and proceeds on a 'isunderstandin of the PS+#

RIL# *i;o and /P are all parties to the PS+. The are

all contractorsunder the PS+. The PS+ reconies

that the operator %ould act on behalf of the

contractor. "ll in)est'ents are funded b not @ust

the Petitioner *o.1 but also b the other parties#

42


43/71Page 43

and the are eHuall entitled to the costs reco)ered

and the profits earned. Jor the sa;e of operational

efficienc# the Operatoracts for and on behalf of the

other parties. Therefore# I find substance in the

sub'ission of 6r. Sal)e that the disputes ha)e been

raised in the correspondence addressed b

Petitioner *o.1 not @ust on its o%n behalf but on

behalf of all the parties. =urin the course of his

sub'issions# 6r. "nil =i)an had# in fact# sub'itted

that *i;o and /P %ill be affected b the arbitral

a%ard and it %ould be bindin upon the' too.

Therefore# if the Petitioner *o.1 %as to succeed in

the arbitration# the a%ard %ould enure not onl to

the benefit of Petitioner *o.1 but to all the parties to

the PS+. +on)ersel# if the 7o)ern'ent of India

%ere to succeed before the tribunal# aain the

a%ard %ould ha)e to be enforced aainst all the

parties. In other %ords# each of the Contractors

%ould ha)e to perfor' the obliations cast upon

the'. In that )ie% of the 'atter# it is not possible to

43


44/71Page 44

accept the sub'ission of 6r. =i)an that the

arbitration in the present case is not an

international arbitration.

55. It is eHuall not possible to accept the contention

of 6r. =i)an that *i;o and /P ha)e not raised

an arbitrable dispute %ith Union of India. " perusal

of so'e of the pro)isions of PS+ %ould 'a;e it clear

that all three entities are parties to the PS+. "ll

three entities ha)e rihts and obliations under the

PS+ see "rticle >.1(a!Q# includin %ith respect to

the +ost Petroleu'# Profit Petroleu' and +ontract

+osts (see "rticle .!# all of %hich are funda'ental

issues in the underlin dispute. 2here RIL acts

under the PS+# includin b co''encin

arbitration# it does so not onl on behalf of itself# but

also 3on behalf of all constituents of the

contractors4 includin *i;o and /P. I a' inclined to

accept the sub'ission of 6r. Sal)e that there is a

sinificant and broad ranin dispute bet%een RIL#

44


45/71Page 45

*i;o and /P on the one hand and the UOI on the

other hand# that oes to the heart of the 'ain

contractual rihts and obliations under the PS+.

Jurther'ore# it is a 'atter of record that in the

correspondence leadin to the filin of the earlier

petition bein ".P.*o.> of A1# no such ob@ection

about *i;o and /P not bein a part to the dispute

had been ta;en. In fact# the petition %as disposed of

on a @oint reHuest 'ade b the parties that t%o

arbitrators ha)in been no'inated# no further

orders %ere reHuired. Therefore# there see's to be

substance in the sub'ission of 6r. Sal)e that all

these ob@ections about *i;o and /P not bein the

parties are an afterthouht. Such ob@ections# at this

stae# can not be countenanced as the

co''ence'ent of arbitration has alread been

'uch delaed.

56. /oth the parties had brouht to the attention of

the +ourt the correspondence fro' their o%n

45


46/71Page 46

perspecti)e. Ma)in considered the aforesaid

correspondence# rele)ant e:tract of %hich ha)e

been noticed earlier# it is not possible to hold that

the correspondence is onl on behalf of the RIL. I#

therefore# do not accept the sub'ission of 6r. "nil

=i)an that this is an arbitration bet%een the t%o

Indian parties onl.

57. Jurther 'ore the accountin procedure

("ppendi: + to PS+! clearl pro)ides that RIL shall

;eep the accounts for the purposes of cost reco)er

state'ent. Therefore# it cannot be said that the

clai's 'ade b the Petitioner are onl on behalf of

RIL. The @oint operatin aree'ent e:pressl

pro)ides that the operator 3to initiate litiation on

behalf of all the parties.4 The fallac of the stand

ta;en b UOI is patent. On the one hand# the

Respondent clai's that the arbitral a%ard %ould

bind not onl Petitioner *o.1 but also Petitioner *os.

and 0# but on the other hand# is insistin that the

46


47/71Page 47

arbitration proceedins are onl bet%een Petitioner

*o.1 and UOI.

5. This no% brins 'e to the 'a@or di)erence of

)ie%s bet%een 6r. Sal)e and 6r. =i)an on the

interpretation to be placed on "rticles 00., and 00.

of the PS+. /oth the learned senior counsel accept

that %hen e:ercisin po%er under Section 11(! of

the "rbitration "ct# the B+hief 5ustice of India or the

person or the institution desinated b hi'C

(hereinafter referred to as 3+5I4 for con)enience! is

reHuired to appoint the nd"rbitrator fro' a'onst

persons %ho are not nationals of the countr of an

of the parties to the arbitration proceedins.

Thereafter# both the learned senior counsel ha)e

e:pressed di)erent )ie%s. "ccordin to 6r. Sal)e#

the pro)isions contained in "rticle 00., indicates the

sinificance that the parties ha)e attached to the

neutrality of the arbitrators. Therefore# necessarily

the +hair'an?Presidin "rbitrator %ould ha)e to be

47


48/71Page 48

of a nationality other than India. "ccordin to hi'#

appoint'ent of an Indian "rbitrator under "rticle

00. %ould not be an option open to the +5I. On the

other hand# 6r. =i)an e'phasised that there is no

reHuire'ent in "rticle 00. for appoint'ent of a

forein arbitrator# identical or si'ilar to the

pro)ision in "rticle 00.,. Mis )ie% is that the

absence of such a reHuire'ent is deliberate and

sinificant. "ccordin to hi'# it clearl sinifies that

only an Indian *ational can be appointed as the

third arbitrator. I a' of the opinion that both the

learned senior counsel are onl partiall correct.

/oth sides ha)e adopted e:tre'e positions on the

pendulu'. I accept the interpretation of both the

learned senior counsel %ith reard to "rticle 00., as

the reHuest %ill o to the +hief 5ustice of India for

appoint'ent of an arbitrator# 3fro' a'onst

persons %ho are not nationals of the countr of an

of the parties to the arbitration proceedins4. In

e:ercise of the @urisdiction under Section 11(!# the

48


49/71


50/71Page 50

arbitration proble's necessaril ha)e to be )ie%ed

pragmatically. Jortunatel# "rbitration "ct# 1$$ has

'ade e:press pro)ision for adoptin a pragmatic

approach. 2hen the +5I e:ercises his @urisdiction

under Section 11(! he is to be uided b the

pro)isions contained in the "rbitration "ct# 1$$

and generally accepted practices in the other

international @urisdictions. +5I %ould also be an:ious

to ensure that no doubts are cast on the neutrality,

impartially and independence of the "rbitral

Tribunal. In international arbitration# the surest

'ethod of ensurin atleast the appearance of

neutrality %ould be to appoint the sole or the third

arbitrator fro' nationalit other than the parties to

the arbitration. This )ie% of 'ine %ill find support

fro' nu'erous internationall reno%ned

co''entators on the practice of international

arbitration as %ell as @udicial precedents.

5!. "t this stae# it %ould be appropriate to ta;e

50


51/71Page 51

notice of the obser)ations 'ade b t%o such

co''entators.

60. Redfern and Munter on International "rbitration#

Jifth dition (AA$! Para G.,$ e:presses si'ilar

)ie%s %ith reard to the i'portance of the

nationalit of the sole or the third arbitrator bein

fro' a countr different fro' that of the parties to

the arbitration. The opinion of the learned authors is

as follo%s89

3In an ideal %orld# the countr in %hich thearbitrator %as born# or the passport carried#should be irrele)ant. The Hualifications#

e:perience# and interit of the arbitratorshould be the essential criteria. It ouht to bepossible to proceed in the spirit of the 6odelLa% %hich# addressin this Huestion# pro)idessi'pl8 B*o person shall be precluded breason of his nationalit fro' actin as anarbitrator# unless other%ise areed b theparties.C *e)ertheless# as stated abo)e# theusual practice in international co''ercialarbitration is to appoint a sole arbitrator (or apresidin arbitrator! of a different nationalitfro' that of the parties to the dispute.4

61. 7ar /. /orn in International +o''ercial

"rbitration# Volu'e I (AA$! has an elaborate

51


52/71Page 52

discussion on the i'pact of the U*+ITR"L 6odel

La%s as %ell as U*+ITR"L Rules on the appoint'ent

of the sole or the third arbitrator. Me points out that

so'e arbitration leislations contain different

nationalit pro)isions# si'ilar to those applicable

under leadin institutional rules# %hich appl %hen

a national courtacts in its default capacityto select

an arbitrator (in li'ited circu'stances!.

62. "rticle 11(,! of the U*+ITR"L 6odel La% reads as

under89

3" decision on a 'atter entrusted b pararaph

(0! or (G! of this "rticle to the court or otherauthorit specified in "rticle shall be sub@ectto no appeal. The court or other authorit# inappointin an arbitrator# shall ha)e due reardto an Hualifications reHuired of the arbitratorb the aree'ent of the parties and to suchconsiderations as are li;el to secure theappoint'ent of an independent and i'partialarbitrator and# in the case of a sole or thirdarbitrator# shall ta;e into account as %ell thead)isabilit of appointin an arbitrator of anationalit other than those of the parties.4

63. "rticle (G! of U*+ITR"L Rules# 1$ in al'ost

identical ter's reads as under 89

52


53/71Page 53

3In 'a;in the appoint'ent# the appointinauthorit shall ha)e reard to suchconsiderations as are li;el to secure theappoint'ent of an independent and i'partial

arbitrator and shall ta;e into account as %ellad)isabilit of appointin an arbitrator of anationalit other than the nationalities of theparties.4

64. Ta;in note of the aforesaid t%o "rticles# it is

obser)ed b the learned author as follo%s 8

3"rticle 11(,! does not restrict the partiesCautono' to select arbitrators of %hate)ernationalit the %ish. It 'erel affects theactions of national courts# %hen actin in theirdefault roles of appointin arbitrators after thepartiesC efforts to do so ha)e failed. "rticle11(,! does not forbid the appoint'ent offorein nationals as arbitrators# but on thecontrar encouraes the selection of an

internationall9neutral tribunal.

Jar fro' rese'blin national la% prohibitionsaainst forein arbitrators# "rticle 11(,! ai's ate:actl the opposite result. Indeed# "rticle11(1! of the U*+ITR"L 6odel La% alsopro)ides# li;e the uropean and Inter9"'erican+on)entions# that 3no person shall beprecluded b reason of his nationalit fro'actin as an arbitrator# unless other%ise areedb the parties. That properl reflects theinternational consensus# e'braced b theuropean# Inter9"'erican and *e% or;+on)entions# that 'andator nationalitprohibitions are inco'patible %ith the basicpre'ises of international arbitration.4

53


54/71


55/71Page 55

Jifth dition (AA$! at Pae 0# e:presses a si'ilar

opinion# after ta;in into consideration the

U*+ITR"L Rules- I++ Rules- L+I" Rules and I+=R

Rules# %hich is as follo%s 89

3The fact that the arbitrator is of a neutralnationalit is no uarantee of independence ori'partialit. Mo%e)er# the appearanceis betterand thus it is a practice that is enerallfollo%ed4.

67. Section 11 of the "rbitration "ct# 1$$ uses

si'ilar phraseolo as "rticle 11 of the U*+ITR"L

6odel La%. Therefore# it %ould not be possible to

accept the sub'ission of 6r. =i)an that the +ourt

cannot loo; to 6odel La%s or the U*+ITR"L La%s as

leiti'ate aids in i)in the appropriate

interpretation to the pro)isions of Section 11#

includin Section 11(!.

6. In an e)ent# the neutralit of an arbitrator is

assured b Section 11(1! of the "rbitration "ct#

1$$# %hich pro)ides that a person of an

nationalit 'a be an arbitrator# unless other%ise

55


56/71Page 56

areed b the parties. There is no aree'ent

bet%een the parties in this case that e)en a third

arbitrator 'ust necessaril be an Indian national. In

fact# Section 11($! of the "rbitration "ct# 1$$

specificall e'po%ers the +5I to appoint an

arbitrator of a nationalit other than the nationalit

of the parties in)ol)ed in the litiation. Therefore# I

a' unable to accept the sub'ission of 6r. "nil

=i)an that it %ould not be per'issible under the

"rbitration "ct# 1$$ to appoint the third arbitrator

of an nationalit other than Indian. 6erel because

the t%o arbitrators no'inated b the parties are

Indian %ould not ipso factolead to the conclusion

that the parties had ruled out the appoint'ent of

the third arbitrator fro' a neutral nationalit. In

this case# both the arbitrators had been appointed

b the parties# therefore# the condition precedent

for appointin an arbitrator# fro' a'onst persons#

%ho are not nationals of the countr of an of the

parties to the arbitration proceedins# had not e)en

56


57/71


58/71Page 58

beco'e rele)ant. It %ould be necessar for the

+hief 5ustice of India to ta;e into consideration the

%ill of the Indian Parlia'ent e:pressed in Section

11($!. It appears to 'e that the sub'ission 'ade

b the Petitioners cannot be said to be %ithout an

'erit. I a' unable to read into "rticle 00.# an

e'baro on the appoint'ent of a forein national

as the third arbitrator as sub'itted b 6r. =i)an. It

is not possible to accept the sub'ission that the

parties ha)e specificall decided to e:clude the

appoint'ent of a forein arbitrator under "rticle

00.# as no specific pro)ision %as 'ade para

materia to "rticle 00.,. )en in the absence of a

specific pro)ision# the appoint'ent of the third

arbitrator under "rticle 00. %ould ha)e to be

uided b the pro)isions contained under Section

11($! of the "rbitration "ct.

70. I a' also unable to accept the sub'ission of 6r.

=i)an that since the pro)ision contained in Section

58


59/71Page 59

11($! of the "rbitration "ct# 1$$ is not 'andator-

the +ourt ouht to appoint the third arbitrator# %ho

is an Indian *ational. This +ourt# in the case of

M--&%-( A%%(*& S&+*$& BHD II :&"-;,

interpretin Section 11($! after ta;in into

consideration the position in so'e other countries

%here the U*+ITR"L 6odel La% is adopted# has

co'e to the follo%in conclusions89

=25. It is# therefore# clear that in se)eralcountries %here the U*+ITR"L 6odel isadopted# it has been held that it is noti'per'issible to appoint an arbitrator of anationalit of one of the parties to arbitration.

26. In the liht of the abo)e rules in )arious

countries and rulins of the court and also in)ie% of the fact that the 1$$ "ct is based onU*+ITR"L 6odel La% %hich in "rticle (G! onlspea;s of 3taking into account4 the nationalitas one of the factors# I a' of the )ie% that the%ord 3'a4 in Section 11($! of the "ct is notintended to be read as 3'ust4 or 3shall4.

27. I a'# therefore# of the )ie% that %hile

nationalit of the arbitrator is a 'atter to be;ept in )ie%# it does not follo% fro' Section11($! that the proposed arbitrator is necessarildisHualified because he belons to thenationalit of one of the parties. The %ord3'a4 is not used in the sense of 3shall4. Thepro)ision is not 'andator. In case the part%ho belons to a nationalit other than that of

59


60/71


61/71Page 61

the pro)isions of Sections 11($! of the"rbitration and +onciliation "ct# an arbitratorha)in a neutral nationalit be appointed#'eanin thereb that the sole arbitrator should

neither be a =utch national nor be an Indiannational. Section 11($! is reproduced as under8

311. ($! In the case of appoint'ent ofsole or third arbitrator in aninternational co''ercial arbitration# the+hief 5ustice of India or the person orinstitution desinated b hi' 'aappoint an arbitrator of a nationalitother than the nationalities of theparties %here the parties belon todifferent nationalities.4

The ;e %ord in the abo)e pro)ision is 3'a4%hich lea)es a discretion in the +hief 5ustice orhis no'inee in this behalf and it is not'andator that the sole arbitrator should be of anationalit other than the nationalities of theparties to the aree'ent.4

72. /ut the ratio in the aforesaid cases can not be

read to 'ean that in all circu'stances# it is not

possible to appoint an arbitrator of a nationalit

other than the parties in)ol)ed in the litiation. It is

a 'atter of record that +lause 00., of the PS+

pro)ides that on failure of the second party to

no'inate its arbitrator# the +hief 5ustice of India

'a be reHuested to appoint the second arbitrator

61


62/71Page 62

fro' a'onst persons %ho are not nationals of the

countr of an of the parties to the arbitration

proceedins. Therefore# in principle# it beco'es

apparent that the Respondents ha)e accepted the

appoint'ent of the second arbitrator fro' a neutral

countr. 6erel because# the seat of arbitration is

in India# the applicable la% is Indian La%- it does not

beco'e incu'bent on the +ourt to appoint the third

arbitrator# %ho is an Indian national. The concern of

the +ourt is to ensure neutrality# impartiality and

independenceof the third arbitrator. +hoice of the

parties has little# if anthin# to do %ith the choice

of the +hief 5ustice of India or his no'inee in

appointin the third arbitrator. It is true that e)en

at the stae of e:ercisin its @urisdiction under

Section 11(! at the final stae# the +hief 5ustice of

India or his no'inee can infor'all enHuire about

the preference of the parties. /ut it is entirel upto

the +hief 5ustice of India# %hether to accept an of

the preferences or to appoint the third arbitrator not

62


63/71Page 63

'entioned b an of the parties. In 'a;in such a

choice# the +hief 5ustice of India %ill be uided b

the rele)ant pro)isions contained in the "rbitration

"ct# U*+ITR"L 6odel La%s and the U*+ITR"L Rules#

%here the parties ha)e included the applicabilit of

the U*+ITR"L 6odel La%s?U*+ITR"L Rules b

choice.

73. I 'ust e'phasise here that the trend of the third

arbitrator?presidin officer of a neutral nationalit

bein appointed is no% 'ore or less uni)ersall

accepted under the "rbitration "cts and "rbitration

Rules in different @urisdictions.

74. In the present case# "rticle 00($! of the PS+

adopts the U*+ITR"L Rules for the arbitration

aree'ent under "rticle 0$. The applicable

U*+ITR"L Rules at the ti'e %hen the arbitration

aree'ent %as sined %ere the 1$ Rules.

63


64/71Page 64

75. The aforesaid Rules ha)e been literall

paraphrased in Section 11($! of the "rbitration "ct#

1$$. Rule G of U*+ITR"L states that in 'a;in the

appoint'ent# the appointin authorit shall ha)e

reard to such consideration as are li;el to secure

appoint'ent of an independent and impartial

arbitrator. Superi'posed on those t%o conditions is

a pro)ision that the appointin authorit shall ta;e

into account# as %ell# the ad)isabilit of arbitrator of

a nationalit other than the nationalities of the

parties. These rules in ' opinion are al'ost

parallel to "rticle 00(,! of the PS+.

76. 6r. "nil =i)an had# ho%e)er# raised serious

doubts about the i'partialit of the third arbitrator

due to the o'nipresence of /ritish Petroleu' all

o)er the %orld. I a' of the considered opinion that

the apprehension e:pressed b the learned senior

counsel is i'ainar and illusor. Such a proposition

cannot possibl be accepted as a eneral practice

64


65/71


66/71Page 66

the +hief 5ustice or the person or an institutiondesinated b hi' in appointin an arbitratorshall ha)e 3due reard4 to the t%o cu'ulati)econditions relatin to Hualifications and other

considerations as are li;el to secure theappoint'ent of an independent and i'partialarbitrator.

12." bare readin of the sche'e of Section 11sho%s that the e'phasis is on the ter's of thearee'ent bein adhered to and?or i)eneffect as closel as possible. In other %ords# the+ourt 'a as; to do %hat has not been done.

The +ourt 'ust first ensure that the re'ediespro)ided for are e:hausted. It is true ascontended b 6r =esai# that it is not 'andatorfor the +hief 5ustice or an person or institutiondesinated b hi' to appoint the na'edarbitrator or arbitrators. /ut at the sa'e ti'e#due reard has to be i)en to the HualificationsreHuired b the aree'ent and otherconsiderations.

13. The e:pression 3due reard4 'eans thatproper attention to se)eral circu'stances ha)ebeen focused. The e:pression 3necessar4 as aeneral rule can be broadl stated to be thosethins %hich are reasonabl reHuired to bedone or leall ancillar to the acco'plish'entof the intended act. *ecessar 'easures canbe stated to be the reasonable steps reHuiredto be ta;en.4

7.


67/71Page 67

impartiality and independence of the third

arbitrator. "s held earlier# the apprehension

e:pressed b the Respondent Union of India see's

to be i'ainar and illusor. 2hate)er is bein said

about the influence?presence of /ritish Petroleu' in

other @urisdictions %ould appl eHuall to the Union

of India# if the third arbitrator is an Indian national#

%ithin the Indian @urisdiction.

7!. The apprehension e:pressed b 6r. =i)an that if

a forein national is appointed as a third arbitrator#

the Tribunal %ould be at a disad)antae as all

applicable la%s are Indian# in ' opinion# o)erloo;s

the fact that the t%o arbitrators alread appointed

are Jor'er +hief 5ustices of India and can be )er

safel relied upon to ad)ise the third arbitrator of

an leal position# %hich is peculiar to India.

0. "t this stae# nor'all the 'atter ouht to be

re'itted bac; to the t%o arbitrators appointed b

67


68/71Page 68

the parties to choose the third arbitrator on the

basis of the obser)ations 'ade in the @ud'ent.

Mo%e)er# i)en the sharp difference of opinion

bet%een the t%o arbitrators# I dee' it appropriate

to perfor' the tas; of appointin the third arbitrator

in this +ourt itself. Therefore# I had reHuested the

learned senior counsel for the parties to suppl a list

of e'inent indi)iduals one of %ho' could be

appointed as the third arbitrator. "lthouh t%o lists

ha)e been dul supplied b the learned counsel for

the parties# I a' of the opinion# in the peculiar facts

and circu'stances of this case# it %ould be

appropriate if an indi)idual not na'ed b an of the

parties is appointed as the third arbitrator. I ha)e

discretel conducted a sur)e to find a suitable

third arbitrator %ho is not a *ational of an of the

parties in)ol)ed in the dispute.

1. Upon due consideration# I hereb appoint

Monourable 5a'es Spiel'an "+ +# for'er +hief

68


69/71Page 69

5ustice and Lieutenant 7o)ernor of *e% South

2ales# "ustralia as the third "rbitrator %ho shall act

as the +hair'an of the "rbitral Tribunal. The 9

'ail address %hich has been supplied to this +ourt

is as follo%s 8

spielbipond.net.au

2. In )ie% of the considerable dela# the "rbitral

Tribunal is reHuested to enter upon the reference at

the earliest and to render the a%ard as

e:peditiousl as possible.

3. The "rbitration Petition is allo%ed in the aforesaid

ter's. *o costs.

>>>>>>>>>>>J.?S"%(* S%(8N%@@-

N* D*%M-/ 31, 2014.

69


70/71Page 70

70


71/71

ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.6 SECTION XVIA

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 27 OF 2013

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

U.O.I. Respondent(s)

Date: 31/03/2014 This Petition was called on for

pronouncement of judgment today.

For Petitioner(s)

M/S. Parekh & Co., Advs.

For Respondent(s)

Mr. Shailendra Swarup, Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar pronounced

the judgment.

The petition is allowed in terms of the signed

reportable judgment.

[Nidhi Ahuja] [Indu Bala Kapur]

Court Master Court Master

[Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file.]

Date post:	03-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	live-law
View:	250 times
Download:	0 times

Reliance Industries v. UOI

Documents