Dozco vs Doosan

8/18/2019 Dozco vs Doosan

1/11

Dozco India(Petitioner)

vs.Doosan Infracore(Respondent)

(2011)6 SCC179


2/11

Issue

Whether Supreme Court have the

jurisdiction to appoint an Arbitrator u/s.11 (6) of the Act even after havingCause !" in Arbitration Agreement.


3/11

#a$.

Arbitration and Conciiation Act 1%%6

11. ppoint!ent of ar"itrators.

(6) #$ere% &nder an appoint!ent proced&re a'reed &pon " t$e

parties%

(a) a part fai*s to act as re+&ired &nder t$at proced&re, or

(") t$e parties% or t$e t-o appointed ar"itrators% fai* to reac$ ana'ree!ent epected of t$e! &nder t$at proced&re, or

(c) a person% inc*&din' an instit&tion% fai*s to perfor! an f&nctionentr&sted $i! or it &nder t$at proced&re% a part !a re+&est t$eC$ief /&stice or an person or instit&tion desi'nated " $i! tae t$enecessar !eas&re% &n*ess t$e a'ree!ent on t$e appoint!ent

proced&re provides ot$er !eans for sec&rin' t$e appoint!ent .

http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/605764/http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/234911/http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1466040/http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1758564/http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1758564/http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1466040/http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/234911/http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/605764/


4/11

Arbitration AgreementCauses

rt. 22. overnin' 3a-s 22.1 4 5$isa'ree!ent s$a** "e 'overned " and constr&edin accordance -it$ t$e *a-s of 5$e Rep&"*ic of

orea.

rt. 2. r"itration 2.1 4 ** disp&tes arisin'in connection -it$ t$is 'ree!ent s$a** "e8na** sett*ed " ar"itration in Seo&*% orea (ors&c$ ot$er p*ace as t$e parties !a a'ree in-ritin')% p&rs&ant to t$e r&*es of a'ree!entt$en in force of t$e Internationa* C$a!"er ofCo!!erce


5/11

&acts

'etitioner entered into distributorship agreement$ith espondent.

'etitioner $as ecusive distributor for respondent

in India and *hutan for his products

+he distribution agreement (Artice !") containedan arbitration agreement providing for arbitrationunder the ICC Arbitration ues.

+he seat of arbitration , Seou- orea (or such otherpace as the parties ma agree in $riting

0overning a$ ,#a$ of the epubic of orea.


6/11

isputes arises.

'etitioner sends a notice to the respondent caing

on it to appoint an arbitrator in accordance $ith thearbitration agreement.

2n the respondent3s faiure to appoint an arbitrator-the petitioner 4ed an appication in the SupremeCourt of India for the appointment of an arbitratorunder section 11(6) of the Act.


7/11

'etitioner3s Arguments

As per *hatia Internationa and Indte case provisionsof part 1 appies in case of internationa arbitration$hich are hed out of India and are governed bforeign a$- unti and uness the parties b agreement

resist it. (0iven in para "6 of Case) and therefore $ehave right to appoint an arbitrator u/s 11(6) as courtsdo have jurisdiction because of 'art 1.

*rac5eted portion of the arbitration agreement givesparties an option to designate another pace ofarbitration therefore it $as never the intention of theparties to designate Seou- orea- as the ega seat ofarbitration and hence it can be changed-


8/11

espondent3s Arguments

ecisions of *hatia internationa case $ont be appicabebecause there is a dierence bet$een 7#ega seat ofarbitration8 and 7geographica ocation for hodingproceedings8 $hich are misinterpreted here.

'arties have chosen the proper a$ of contract as $e asthe arbitration agreement to be orean a$ $ith a seat ofarbitration in Seou and the arbitration a$ beingconducted in accordance $ith ues of the ICC.

eferrring to 9usti and *od he argued that in case ofabsence of epress agreement- there is a strong primafacie presumption that the parties intend the proceduraa$ to be the a$ of the :seat: of the arbitration.


9/11

And referred to 7common feature of internationaarbitrations8 epained in edfern and ;unter. 2npage < $hich cear ma5es distinction and epain

ho$ both $or5s.

;e pointed out that the brac5eted portion is on forthe purpose of providing the convenience of hodingproceedings of the arbitration ese $here than

Seou. ;o$ever- that cannot be ao$ed to overridethe main Cause of Art. !".

&or the seat of arbitration petitioner aso reied on

the case of Info$ares #td. v. =>uino Corporationcomparing it $ith there cause 1?.1 and !" of thereo$n cause but here respondent said that in !"there is epress ecusion of part 1 $hie in 1?.1 itsnot so here the cannot refer to this at an point of

time.


10/11

Court3s ;oding

Referrin' to aviera !ozonica Per&na case- courtdre$ a distinction bet$een the ega 7seat8 ofarbitration and a geographica convenient 7pace8 ofarbitration and hed that it $as never the intention of

the parties to have the ega seat of arbitration as anpace other than Seou- orea.

Arts. !! and !" of the istributorship Agreementbet$een the parties in this case cear ecuded 'art Iof the Act and the a$ aid do$n in *hatia Internationaand =>uino Corporation case is not appicabe here sono >uestion of appicabiit of S. 11(6) of the Act andthe appointment of Arbitrator in terms of that

provision


11/11

+han5 @ou

*, 'u5it 9ogra

Documents

Dozco vs Doosan