{"id":312178,"date":"2024-01-25T12:00:45","date_gmt":"2024-01-25T06:30:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=312178"},"modified":"2024-02-02T14:35:57","modified_gmt":"2024-02-02T09:05:57","slug":"cal-hc-dismisses-application-for-appointment-of-arbitrator-rules-may-in-clause-13-renders-dispute-resolution-ambiguous-scc-blog","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/25\/cal-hc-dismisses-application-for-appointment-of-arbitrator-rules-may-in-clause-13-renders-dispute-resolution-ambiguous-scc-blog\/","title":{"rendered":"Calcutta High Court dismisses application for appointment of Arbitrator; rules \u201cMay\u201d in Clause 13 renders dispute resolution ambiguous"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Calcutta High Court:<\/span> In a matter before the Court for the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (the Act), a single-judge bench comprising of Moushumi Bhattacharya,* J.<\/span>, held that Clause 13 of the General Terms and Conditions in the e-tender notice does not constitute a valid arbitration agreement under Section 7<\/a> of the Act<\/a> and hence, dismissed the present application on the grounds of maintainability.<\/p>\n

Brief Facts<\/p>\n

In the instant matter, the petitioner seeks the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11<\/a> of the Act<\/a>. The dispute arises from the petitioner’s engagement as a contractor for a project specified in an e-tender notice issued by the respondent, Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL). The petitioner relied on Clause 13 of the General Terms and Conditions in the e-tender notice, claiming it contains an arbitration clause. The respondent challenges the maintainability of the application, arguing the absence of an arbitration agreement.<\/p>\n

Moot Point<\/p>\n

Whether the use of the word “may” in the arbitration clause implies a clear intention to arbitrate, as required by Section 7<\/a> of the Act<\/a>?<\/p>\n

Legal Framework<\/p>\n