# M/S. UTTARAKHAND PURV SAINIK KALYAN NIGAM LIMITED v. NORTHERN COAL FIELD LIMITED

- **Citation:** [2019] 14 S.C.R. 999
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2019-11-27
- **Case number:** Arbitration Case No.56 of 2016
- **Bench:** Indu Malhotra, Ajay Rastogi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/m-s-uttarakhand-purv-sainik-kalyan-nigam-limited-v-northern-coal-field-limited-33310
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: s.11 - Whether the
High Court was justified in rejecting the application filed under
s.11 for reference to arbitration, on the ground that it was barred
by limitation - Arbitration agreement between the parties - Dispute
arose between them - Petitioner sent notices calling upon the
Respondent to nominate a Sole Arbitrator in terms of the
arbitration clause - Respondent did not respond to the notices -
Petitioner filed application under s.11 invoking the default power
of the High Court to make the appointment of a sole arbitrator -
High Court held that the claims of the Petitioner were barred by
limitation, and therefore an arbitrator could not be appointed
under s.11 of the Act - Hence the instant special leave appeal -
Held: Notice of Arbitration was issued on 09.03.2016 - Since the
invocation took place after s.11 was amended by the 2015
Amendment Act, which came into force on 23.10.2015, the amended
provision is applicable to the instant case - In view of the
legislative mandate contained in s.11(6A), the Court is required only
to examine the existence of the arbitration agreement - All other
preliminary or threshold issues were left to be decided by the
arbitrator under s.16, which enshrines the Kompetenz-Kompetenz
principle - The doctrine of "Kompetenz-Kompetenz", also referred
to as "Compétence-Compétence", or "Compétence de la
recognized", implies that the arbitral tribunal is empowered and
has the competence to rule on its own jurisdiction including
determining all jurisdictional issues, and the existence or validity
of the arbitration agreement - This doctrine is intended to minimize
judicial intervention, so that the arbitral process is not thwarted at
the threshold, when a preliminary objection is raised by one of the
parties - In view of the provisions of s.16, and the legislative policy
 [2019] 14 S.C.R. 999
999
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1000
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
to restrict judicial intervention at the pre-reference stage, the issue
of limitation would require to be decided by the arbitrator -
Thus, the issue of limitation is a jurisdictional issue, which would
be required to be decided by the arbitrator under s.16, and not the
High Court at the pre-reference stage under s.11 of the Act - In the
instant case, the issue of limitation was raised by the Respondentcompany to oppose the appointment of the arbitrator under s.11
before the High Court - The issue of limitation being a
jurisdictional issue, the same has to be decided by the tribunal
under s.16, which is based on Article 16 of the UNCITRAL Model
Law which enshrines the Kompetenze principle - The order of High
Court is, therefore, set aside - Retired judge of Supreme Court
appointed as the Sole Arbitrator - Parties directed to appear
before the Arbitrator on 02.12.2019 - Matter disposed of -
Doctrine of kompetenz-kompetenz.
Doctrines/Principles: Doctrine of kompetenz-kompetenz -
Applicability of, exception - Held: The doctrine is subject to the
exception i.e. when the arbitration agreement itself is impeached as
being procured by fraud or deception - This exception would also
apply to cases where the parties in the process of negotiation, may
have entered into a draft agreement as an antecedent step prior to
executing the final contract - The draft agreement would be a mere
proposal to arbitrate, and not an unequivocal acceptance of the
terms of the agreement - s.7 of the Contract Act, 1872 requires the
acceptance of a contract to be absolute and unqualified - If an
arbitration agreement is not valid or non-existent, the arbitral
tribunal cannot assume jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the disputes
- Appointment of an arbitrator may be refused if the arbitration
agreement is not in writing, or the disputes are beyond the scope of
the arbitration agreement - Article V(1)(a) of the New York
Convention also states that recognition and enforcement of an award
may be refused if the arbitration agreement 'is not v

## Text

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
999
 M/S. UTTARAKHAND PURV SAINIK
KALYAN NIGAM LIMITED
v.
 NORTHERN COAL FIELD LIMITED
(Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11476 of 2018)
 NOVEMBER 27, 2019
[INDU MALHOTRA AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: s.11 - Whether the
High Court was justified in rejecting the application filed under
s.11 for reference to arbitration, on the ground that it was barred
by limitation - Arbitration agreement between the parties - Dispute
arose between them - Petitioner sent notices calling upon the
Respondent to nominate a Sole Arbitrator in terms of the
arbitration clause - Respondent did not respond to the notices -
Petitioner filed application under s.11 invoking the default power
of the High Court to make the appointment of a sole arbitrator -
High Court held that the claims of the Petitioner were barred by
limitation, and therefore an arbitrator could not be appointed
under s.11 of the Act - Hence the instant special leave appeal -
Held: Notice of Arbitration was issued on 09.03.2016 - Since the
invocation took place after s.11 was amended by the 2015
Amendment Act, which came into force on 23.10.2015, the amended
provision is applicable to the instant case - In view of the
legislative mandate contained in s.11(6A), the Court is required only
to examine the existence of the arbitration agreement - All other
preliminary or threshold issues were left to be decided by the
arbitrator under s.16, which enshrines the Kompetenz-Kompetenz
principle - The doctrine of "Kompetenz-Kompetenz", also referred
to as "Compétence-Compétence", or "Compétence de la
recognized", implies that the arbitral tribunal is empowered and
has the competence to rule on its own jurisdiction including
determining all jurisdictional issues, and the existence or validity
of the arbitration agreement - This doctrine is intended to minimize
judicial intervention, so that the arbitral process is not thwarted at
the threshold, when a preliminary objection is raised by one of the
parties - In view of the provisions of s.16, and the legislative policy
 [2019] 14 S.C.R. 999
999
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1000
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
to restrict judicial intervention at the pre-reference stage, the issue
of limitation would require to be decided by the arbitrator -
Thus, the issue of limitation is a jurisdictional issue, which would
be required to be decided by the arbitrator under s.16, and not the
High Court at the pre-reference stage under s.11 of the Act - In the
instant case, the issue of limitation was raised by the Respondentcompany to oppose the appointment of the arbitrator under s.11
before the High Court - The issue of limitation being a
jurisdictional issue, the same has to be decided by the tribunal
under s.16, which is based on Article 16 of the UNCITRAL Model
Law which enshrines the Kompetenze principle - The order of High
Court is, therefore, set aside - Retired judge of Supreme Court
appointed as the Sole Arbitrator - Parties directed to appear
before the Arbitrator on 02.12.2019 - Matter disposed of -
Doctrine of kompetenz-kompetenz.
Doctrines/Principles: Doctrine of kompetenz-kompetenz -
Applicability of, exception - Held: The doctrine is subject to the
exception i.e. when the arbitration agreement itself is impeached as
being procured by fraud or deception - This exception would also
apply to cases where the parties in the process of negotiation, may
have entered into a draft agreement as an antecedent step prior to
executing the final contract - The draft agreement would be a mere
proposal to arbitrate, and not an unequivocal acceptance of the
terms of the agreement - s.7 of the Contract Act, 1872 requires the
acceptance of a contract to be absolute and unqualified - If an
arbitration agreement is not valid or non-existent, the arbitral
tribunal cannot assume jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the disputes
- Appointment of an arbitrator may be refused if the arbitration
agreement is not in writing, or the disputes are beyond the scope of
the arbitration agreement - Article V(1)(a) of the New York
Convention also states that recognition and enforcement of an award
may be refused if the arbitration agreement 'is not valid under the
law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication
thereon, under the law of the country where the award was made' -
Arbitration law - Contract Act, 1872 - s.7.
ITW Signode India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise
(2004) 3 SCC 48 : [2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 751; NTPC v.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1001
Siemens Atkein Gesell Schaft (2007) 4 SCC 451 : [2007]
3 SCR 399 ; M/s. Indian Farmers Fertilizers
Cooperative Ltd. v. Bhadra Products (2018) 2 SCC
534 : [2018] 1 SCR 848 - relied on.
SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd. (2005) 8 SCC
618 : [2005] 4 Suppl. SCR 688 ; National Insurance
Co. v. Boghara Polyfab (P) Ltd. (2009) 1 SCC 267 :
[2008] 13 SCR 638 ; Union of India & Ors. v. Master
Construction Co., (2011) 12 SCC 349 : [2011] 5 SCR
853 ; Duro Felguera S.A. v. Gangavaram Port Limited
(2017) 9 SCC 729 : [2017] 10 SCR 285; Dresser Rand
SA v. Bindal Agro-Chem Ltd. (2006) 1 SCC 751 :
[2006] 1 SCR 308 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2005] 4 Suppl. SCR 688
 referred to
Para 9.4
[2008] 13 SCR 638
 referred to
Para 9.4
[2011] 5 SCR 853
 referred to
Para 9.4
[2017] 10 SCR 285
 referred to
Para 9.7
[2006] 1 SCR 308
 referred to
Para 9.9
[2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 751
 relied on
Para 9.12
[2007] 3 SCR 399
 relied on
Para 9.12
[2018] 1 SCR 848
 relied on
Para 9.12
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No. 11476 of 2018
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.01.2018 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur in Arbitration Case No.56 of 2016
 Kailash Pandey, Ranjeet Singh, Ms. Jyoti Kumar Mishra,
Ms. Sushmita Mishra (for Gaichangpou Gangmei), Advs. for the
Petitioner.
Ashwani Kumar Dubey, Pankaj Sharma, Chandra Shekhar Mishra,
Advs. for the Respondent.
M/S.UTTARAKHAND PURV SAINIK KALYAN NIGAM LTD. v.
 NORTHERN COAL FIELD LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1002
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
The Order of the Court was passed by
INDU MALHOTRA, J.
1.The issue which has arisen for consideration is whether the
High Court was justified in rejecting the application filed under Section
11 for reference to arbitration, on the ground that it was barred by limitation.
2. The factual background of the case arises from an agreement
dated 21.12.2010 entered into between the parties, under which the
Petitioner - Contractor was to provide security to the Respondent -
Company around the clock on need basis, as per the agreed contractual
rates.
The Agreement contained an arbitration clause which reads as
follows :
"13. Arbitration :
13.1 If any dispute, difference, question or disagreement shall
at any time hereafter arise between the parties hereto
or the respective or assigns in connection with or
arising out of or in respect of contract, application of
provision thereof, anything there-under contained or
arising there-under or as to rights, liabilities or duties
of the said parties hereunder or any matter whatsoever
incidental to this contract shall be referred to the sole
Arbitration of the person appointed by Director (Pers.)
of NCL. CONTRACTOR shall have no objection to any
such appointment that the arbitrator so appointed is an
employee of NCL or that he had dealt with the matter to
which the contract related and that in the course of his
duties as NCL employees he has expressed views on all
or any of the matter of disputes or difference.
13.2 If the arbitrator to whom the matter is originally by
referred dies or refused to act or resigns for any
reason from the position of arbitrator, it shall be
lawful, for Director (Pers.) of NCL to appoint another
person to act as Arbitrator. Such person shall be
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1003
entitled to proceed with the reference from the stage at
which it was left by his predecessor or to precede
denovo.
13.3 It is agreed that no person other than the person
appointed by Directed (Pers.) of NCL as aforesaid shall
act as Arbitrator.
13.4 It is term of the contract that the CONTRACTOR shall
not stop the work under this contract and the work shall
continue whether the arbitration proceedings were
commenced or not.
13.5 It is term of this contract that the parties invoking the
arbitration shall specify the dispute to be referred for
arbitration.
13.6 The Arbitrator shall give reasoned award in respect of
each of the difference referred to him. The award as
aforesaid shall be final and binding on all the parties
to this contract in accordance with the law.
13.7 The venue of arbitration shall at Singrauli in India and
subject as aforesaid, the provisions of Indian
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and any
statutory modification or reenactment thereof and rules
made there-under and for the time being in force shall
apply to the arbitration proceedings under this clause."
 (emphasis supplied)
3. Disputes arose between the parties with respect to payment of
amounts under the contract by the Respondent - Company, and the
deduction of the security amount from the running bills.
The Petitioner - Contractor issued a Legal Notice dated
29.05.2013demanding payment of amounts to the tune of Rs. 1,43,69,309/
- alongwith interest from the Respondent - Company.
4. On 09.03.2016, the Petitioner - Contractor issued a Notice of
Arbitration calling upon the Respondent - Company to nominate a Sole
Arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause, to adjudicate the disputes
between the parties.
M/S. UTTARAKHAND PURV SAINIK KALYAN NIGAM LTD.v.
 NORTHERN COAL FIELD LTD. [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1004
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
The Respondent - Company did not respond to the Notice dated
09.03.2016.
5. The Petitioner - Contractor sent a further notice on 30.05.2016
to the Respondent - Company proposing the name of Mr. Jai Singh, a
retired Additional District Judge for appointment as the Sole Arbitrator.
The Respondent - Company did not respond to this Notice as
well.
6. The Petitioner - Contractor filed an Application on 20.09.2016,
under Section 11 invoking the default power of the High Court to make
the appointment of a sole arbitrator.
7. The High Court vide the impugned Order held that the claims
of the Petitioner - Contractor were barred by limitation, and thereforean
arbitrator could not be appointed under Section 11 of the 1996 Act.
8. Aggrieved by the impugned Order dated 11.01.2018, the
Petitioner has filed the present Special Leave Petition before this Court.
9. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the
pleadings.
9.1 Section 21 of the 1996 Act provides that arbitral proceedings
commence on the date on which a request for disputes to be
referred to arbitration is received by the respondent.
9.2. In the present case, the Notice of Arbitration was issued by
the Petitioner - Contractor to the Respondent - Company on
09.03.2016.
The invocation took place after Section 11 was amended by the
2015 Amendment Act, which came into force on 23.10.2015,
the amended provision would be applicable to the present
case.
9.3. The 2015 Amendment Act brought about a significant change
in the appointment process under Section 11 : first, the
default power of appointment shifted from the Chief Justice
of the High Court in arbitrations governed by Part I of the
Act, to the High Court; second, the scope of jurisdiction
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1005
under sub-section (6A) of Section 11 was confined to the
examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement at
the pre-reference stage.
9.4. Prior to the coming into force of the 2015 Amendment Act,
much controversy had surrounded the nature of the power of
appointment by the Chief Justice, or his designate under
Section 11.
A seven judge constitution bench of this Court in SBP & Co. v.
Patel Engineering Ltd.,1 defined the scope of power of the Chief
Justice under Section 11. The Court held that the scope of power
exercised under Section 11 was to first decide :
i. whether there was a valid arbitration agreement; and
ii.whether the person who has made the request under Section
11, was a party to the arbitration agreement; and
iii. whether the party making the motion had approached the
appropriate High Court.
Further, the Chief Justice was required to decide all threshold
issues with respect to jurisdiction, the existence of the agreement, whether
the claim was a dead one; or a time-barred claim sought to be
resurrected; or whether the parties had concluded the transaction by
recording satisfaction of their mutual rights and obligations, and received
the final payment without objection, under Section 11, at the
pre-reference stage.
The decision in Patel Engineering (supra) was followed by this
Court in Boghara Polyfab2, Master Construction3, and other
decisions.
9.5 The Law Commission in the246th Report4 recommended that:
"the Commission has recommended amendments to sections 8
and 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The
1 (2005) 8 SCC 618.
2National Insurance Co. v. Boghara Polyfab (P) Ltd. (2009) 1 SCC 267.
3Union of India & Ors. v. Master Construction Co. (2011) 12 SCC 349.
4Amendments to the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996,Report No. 246, Law
Commission of India (August 2014), p. 20.
M/S. UTTARAKHAND PURV SAINIK KALYAN NIGAM LTD.v.
 NORTHERN COAL FIELD LTD. [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1006
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
scope of the judicial intervention is only restricted to
situations where the Court/Judicial Authority finds that the
arbitration agreement does not exist or is null and void. In so
far as the nature of intervention is concerned, it is
recommended that in the event the Court/Judicial Authority is
prima facie satisfied against the argument challenging the
arbitration agreement, it shall appoint the arbitrator and/or
refer the parties to arbitration, as the case may be. The
amendment envisages that the judicial authority shall not
refer the parties to arbitration only if it finds that there does
not exist an arbitration agreement or that it is null and void.
If the judicial authority is of the opinion that prima facie the
arbitration agreement exists, then it shall refer the dispute to
arbitration, and leave the existence of the arbitration
agreement to be finally determined by the arbitral tribunal."
 (emphasis supplied)
9.6. Based on the recommendations of the Law Commission,
Section 11 was substantially amended by the 2015
Amendment Act, to overcome the effect of all previous judgments rendered on the scope of power by a non obstante clause,
and to reinforce the kompetenz-kompetenz principle enshrined
in Section 16 of the 1996 Act.
The 2015 Amendment Act inserted sub-section (6A) to Section
11 which provides that:
"The Supreme Court or, as the case may be, the High Court,
while considering any application under sub-section (4) or
sub-section (5) or sub-section (6), shall, notwithstanding any
judgment, decree or order of any Court, confine to the
examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement."
 (emphasis supplied)
By virtue of the non obstante clause incorporated in Section
11(6A),previous judgments rendered in Patel Engineering (supra) and
Boghara Polyfab (supra), were legislatively over-ruled. The scope of
examination is now confined only to the existence of the arbitration
agreement at the Section 11 stage, and nothing more.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1007
9.7 Reliance is placed on the judgment in Duro Felguera S.A. v.
Gangavaram Port Limited,5 wherein this Court held that :
"From a reading of Section 11(6A), the intention of the
legislature is crystal clear i.e. the Court should and need only
look into one aspect-the existence of an arbitration
agreement. What are the factors for deciding as to whether
there is an arbitration agreement is the next question. The
resolution to that is simple-it needs to be seen if the
agreement contains a Clause which provides for arbitration
pertaining to the disputes which have arisen between the
parties to the agreement."
 (emphasis supplied)
9.8 In view of the legislative mandate contained in Section 11(6A),
the Court is now required only to examine the existence of the
arbitration agreement. All other preliminary or threshold
issues are left to be decided by the arbitrator under Section 16,
which enshrines the Kompetenz-Kompetenz principle.
9.9. The doctrine of "Kompetenz-Kompetenz", also referred to as
"Compétence-Compétence", or "Compétence de la
recognized", implies that the arbitral tribunal is empowered
and has the competence to rule on its own jurisdiction,
including determining all jurisdictional issues, and the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. This doctrine is
intended to minimize judicial intervention, so that the arbitral
process is not thwarted at the threshold, when a preliminary
objection is raised by one of the parties.
The doctrine of kompetenz-kompetenz is, however, subject to
the exceptioni.e. when the arbitration agreement itself is impeached as
being procured by fraud or deception. This exception would also apply
to cases where the parties in the process of negotiation, may have
entered into a draft agreement as an antecedent step prior to executing
5 (2017) 9 SCC 729.
Refer to T.R.F. Ltd. v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd. (2017) 8 SCC 377.
M/S. UTTARAKHAND PURV SAINIK KALYAN NIGAM LTD.v.
 NORTHERN COAL FIELD LTD. [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1008
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
the final contract. The draft agreement would be a mere proposal to
arbitrate, and not an unequivocal acceptance of the terms of the
agreement. Section 7 of the Contract Act, 1872 requires the acceptance
of a contract to be absolute and unqualified6.If an arbitration agreement
is not valid or non-existent, the arbitral tribunal cannot assume
jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the disputes. Appointment of an arbitrator
may be refused if the arbitration agreement is not in writing, or the
disputes are beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement.
Article V(1)(a) of the New York Convention states that
recognition and enforcement of an award may be refused if the
arbitration agreement 'is not valid under the law to which the parties
have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law of the
country where the award was made'.
9.10. The legislative intent underlying the 1996 Act is party
autonomy and minimal judicial intervention in the arbitral
process. Under this regime, once the arbitrator is appointed,
or the tribunal is constituted, all issues and objections are to be
decided by the arbitral tribunal.
9.11. In view of the provisions of Section 16, and the legislative
policy to restrict judicial intervention at the pre-reference stage,
the issue of limitation would require to be decided by the
arbitrator.
Sub-section (1) of Section 16 provides that the arbitral tribunal
may rule on its own jurisdiction, "including any objections" with respect
to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. Section 16 is as
an inclusive provision, which would comprehend all preliminary issues
touching upon the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. The issue of
limitation is a jurisdictional issue, which would be required to be decided
by the arbitrator under Section 16, and not the High Court at the
pre-reference stage under Section 11 of the Act. Once the existence of
the arbitration agreement is not disputed, all issues, including
jurisdictional objections are to be decided by the arbitrator.
9.12. In the present case, the issue of limitation was raised by the
Respondent - Company to oppose the appointment of the
arbitrator under Section 11 before the High Court.
6Dresser Rand SA v. Bindal Agro-Chem Ltd. (2006) 1 SCC 751.
See also BSNL v. Telephone Cables Ltd. (2010) 5 SCC 213.
Refer to PSA Mumbai Investments PTE Ltd. v. Board of Trustees of the Jawaharlal
Nehru Port Trust & Anr. (2018) 10 SCC 525.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1009
Limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. In ITW Signode
India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise7 a three judge bench of this
Court held that the question of limitation involves a question of
jurisdiction. The findings on the issue of limitation would be a
jurisdictional issue. Such a jurisdictional issue is to be determined having
regard to the facts and the law.
Reliance is also placed on the judgment of this Court in NTPC v.
Siemens Atkein Gesell Schaft8, wherein it was held that the arbitral
tribunal would deal with limitation under Section 16 of the 1996 Act. If
the tribunal finds that the claim is a dead one, or that the claim was
barred by limitation, the adjudication of these issues would be on the
merits of the claim. Under sub-section (5) of Section 16, the tribunal has
the obligation to decide the plea; and if it rejects the plea, the arbitral
proceedings would continue, and the tribunal would make the award.
Under sub-section (6) a party aggrieved by such an arbitral award may
challenge the award under Section 34.
In M/s. Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Ltd. v. Bhadra
Products9 this Court held that the issue of limitation being a
jurisdictional issue, the same has to be decided by the tribunal under
Section 16, which is based on Article 16 of the UNCITRAL Model Law
which enshrines the Kompetenze principle.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we set aside the impugned
judgment and order dated 11.01.2018 passed by the High Court, and
direct that the issue of limitation be decided by the arbitral tribunal.
11. With the consent of Counsel for the parties, we appoint
Mr. Justice (Retd.) A. M. Sapre, former Judge of this Court, as the Sole
Arbitrator, subject to the declarations being made under Section 12 of
the 1996 Act (as amended)with respect to the independence and
impartiality of the arbitrator, and the ability to devote sufficient time to
complete the arbitration within the period specified by Section 29A of
the 1996 Act.
12. The arbitration agreement states that the arbitration will beat
Singrauli, Madhya Pradesh. Consequently, the seat of arbitration is at
Singrauli, subject to any modification that may be made by consent of
7 (2004) 3 SCC 48
8 (2007) 4 SCC 451
9 (2018) 2 SCC 534.
M/S. UTTARAKHAND PURV SAINIK KALYAN NIGAM LTD.v.
 NORTHERN COAL FIELD LTD. [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1010
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
the parties. The arbitrator is, however, at liberty to conduct the
proceedings at a convenient venue as per the convenience of the
arbitrator and the parties if so required.
The Arbitrator will be paid fees in accordance with the Fourth
Schedule of the 1996 Act. Both parties will share the costs of the
arbitration equally.
13. The Registry is directed to despatch a copy of this Order to
Mr. Justice (Retd.) A. M. Sapre, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India
at the following address:
"Mr. Justice (Retd.) A. M. Sapre,
Former Judge, Supreme Court of India,
C-203, Second Floor
Sarvodaya Enclave
New Delhi - 110017
Tel No.: 011-40254823
Mob. No.: 7042955488"
The parties are directed to appear before the learned Arbitrator
on 02.12.2019 at 2 p.m.
The matter is disposed of accordingly.
Devika Gujral
 Matter disposed of.