High CourtDivision BenchPetition allowed; appointment of sole arbitrato...

M/S Trans Asian Shipping Services (Pvt.) Ltd. v. M/S Beacon Shipping Lines Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:Arbitration Petition (Civil) No. 20 of 2012
Neutral Citation:[2018] 11 S.C.R. 687

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court
Hon'ble Judges
  • Dipak Misra
  • A. M. Khanwilkar
  • D. Y. Chandrachud
Judgment Date
2018-09-19
Court Decision / Holding
The arbitration petition is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. The Registry is directed to send a copy of the order to the sole arbitrator, Justice Gyan Sudha Misra, to act as the arbitrator to determine the dispute between the parties.
Final Disposition
Petition allowed; appointment of sole arbitrator; no costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • M/S Trans Asian Shipping Services (Pvt.) Ltd.

Respondents

  • M/S Beacon Shipping Lines Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • C. N. Sree Kumar
  • • Ms. Rasmita Chandarn
  • • Amit Sharma

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Supreme Court judgment concerns an Arbitration Petition (Civil) No. 20 of 2012 filed by M/S Trans Asian Shipping Services (Pvt.) Ltd. against M/S Beacon Shipping Lines Ltd. under Section 11(9) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator. The petitioner asserts that an Agency Agreement dated 31 March 2010 governs the relationship and contains a robust arbitration clause under Clauses 18 (Governing Law) and 19 (Disputes and Arbitration). Clause 19 provides that any dispute arising under, or in connection with, the Agreement that cannot be settled amicably shall be determined by arbitration, with each party appointing one arbitrator and, if necessary, an umpire; the language will be English and the governing law Indian law. The petitioner claims breaches of terms of the agency agreement and dues amounting to USD 134,875.8829, and states that arbitration notices were served but the respondent did not respond within the required period. The Court held that a valid arbitration clause exists and, on these facts, appointed Justice Gyan Sudha Misra (a former Supreme Court judge) to act as the sole arbitrator to determine the dispute. The order directs the Registry to transmit a copy to the arbitrator, and the petition is allowed without any costs. The decision emphasizes the enforceability of the arbitration clause and the Court’s power to appoint an arbitrator when disputes remain unsettled.

Provisions of Law Cited

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.11(9)Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.11(6)Agency Agreement dated 31.03.2010 – Clause 5(1) (appointment of arbitrator)Agency Agreement – Clause 18 (Governing Law)Agency Agreement – Clause 19 (Disputes and Arbitration)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contend that the Agency Agreement contains a valid arbitration clause in Clauses 18 and 19. Clause 19 provides that any dispute arising under or out of or in connection with the Agreement, which cannot be settled amicably, shall be determined by arbitration, with each party appointing one arbitrator and potentially an umpire. The petitioner asserts that disputes have arisen and remain unsettled since termination of the combined transport operations on 31.03.2012, and the respondent committed breaches of the terms of the agreement, leading to a claim for dues of USD 134,875.8829. The petition was filed under Section 11(9) for appointment of a sole arbitrator; the petitioner states that arbitration should proceed and that the language of arbitration should be English and governed by Indian law (Clause 19). The petitioner alleges no response from the respondent to the arbitration notice served within 15 days, despite valid demand, and thus requests the Court to appoint Justice Gyan Sudha Misra as the sole arbitrator to determine the dispute.

Contentions of Respondents

Not stated in the document; respondent did not appear; no counter-arguments or pleadings are on record.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against M/S Trans Asian Shipping Services (Pvt.) Ltd. v. M/S Beacon Shipping Lines Ltd. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

687 [2018] 11 S.C.R. 687 M/S TRANS ASIAN SHIPPING SERVICES (PVT.) LTD. A v. M/S BEACON SHIPPING LINES LTD. REPRESENTED BY MR. MOHAMMED S. ASLAM MANAGING DIRECTOR & OTHERS (Arbitration Petition (Civil) No. 20 of 2012) B ## SEPTEMBER 19, 2018 ## **[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]** _Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.11(9) – Appointment of arbitrator under – Agency Agreement between the petitioner and_ C _the respondent – Petitioner asserting breach of various terms and conditions of the agreement by the respondent, sought appointment of a sole arbitrator – Held: An arbitration clause exists in the Agreement which stipulates that any dispute or difference arising under and/or out of or in connection with and/or relating to the_ D _Agreement unless amicably settled, shall be determined by arbitration – Disputes have arisen and remain unsettled – Justice Gyan Sudha Misra, former Judge of Supreme Court, appointed as the arbitrator to determine the dispute between the parties._ D CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Arbitration Petition (Civil) No. 20 of 2012 E Under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the purposes of appointment of Arbitrator under Cl.5(1) of the Agency Agreement dated 31.03.2010. C. N. Sree Kumar, Ms. Rasmita Chandarn, Amit Sharma, Advs. for the petitioner. F The Order of the Court was passed by **DIPAK MISRA, CJI** 1. The petitioner, by this petition under Section 11(9) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity, G ‘the Act’), has prayed for appointment of arbitrator as per Clause 5(1) of the Agency Agreement dated 31.03.2010 between M/s Trans Asian Shipping Services (Pvt.) Ltd. and M/s Beacon Shipping Lines Ltd. H 687 688 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R. - A 2. The petitioner is an Indian company and the respondent company is registered in Bangladesh. It is averred that the petitioner is a multinational company having operations in the Indian Sub-Continent, Middle East and South East Asia and is actively engaged in diversified activities with its core business being shipping especially transportation of containerized cargo. Its activities are related to various shipping operations all over the - B world and, therefore, it engages agents in various countries to undertake for and on behalf of it such functions. It involves their combined transport operations in the name of “Trans Asia Line”. It is urged that the valid subsisting agreement renewed from 31[st] March, 2010 was terminated only on 31[st] March, 2012 with respect to the combined transport - C operations. It is asserted that the respondent committed breach of various terms and conditions of the agency agreement leading to disputes between the parties. The petitioner is entitled to recover dues of USD 134875.8829. Various documents have been filed to show how the amount is due. It is asserted that though the petitioner company sent arbitration notice to the respondent requesting the latter to nominate the arbitrator - D within 15 days of the receipt of the same so that the arbitration board could deal with the disputes, yet there was no response from the respondent. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has prayed for appointment of a sole arbitrator. 3. Despite service of notice, there has been no appearance on E behalf of the respondent no. 1 and other respondents who are the Managing Directors and Directors of the respondent no. 1 company. - F 4. We have heard Mr. C.N. Sree Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to Clauses 18 and 19 of the agreement. The said Clauses read as under:- ## “18. **GOVERNING LAW** This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the Indian Law. ## 19. **DISPUTES AND ARBIRATION** G Any dispute or difference arising under and or out of or in connection with and/or relating to this Agreement, which cannot be settled amicably between the parties, shall be determined by arbitration and shall be governed by the law of India. Each party shall appoint one arbitrator with power to such arbitrators to H M/S TRANS ASIAN SHIPPING SERVICES v. M/S BEACON 689 SHIPPING LINES LTD. [DIPAK MISRA, CJI] appoint, if necessary, an umpire. The language for arbitration A shall be English, and shall be governed by the Indian Law.” 5. On a perusal of the aforesaid Clauses, there can be no trace of doubt that an arbitration clause exists and the same clearly stipulates that any dispute or difference arising under and/or out of or in connection with and/or relating to the Agreement unless amicably settled shall be determined by arbitration. The assertions in the petition clearly state that disputes have arisen and remain unsettled. In the obtaining factual matrix and keeping in view the existence of arbitration clause meant for determination of dispute by arbitration, we appoint Justice Gyan Sudha Misra, formerly a Judge of this Court, to act as the arbitrator to determine the dispute between the parties. B C 6. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the sole arbitrator. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also at liberty to bring it to the notice of the arbitrator. 7. The arbitration petition is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. D Divya Pandey Petition allowed. E F G H