In Brief
A Chinese elevator components manufacturer sought appointment of a sole arbitrator under a commission processing contract with an Indian partnership firm. The contract contained a clause stating disputes should be settled through consultation, and if consultation failed, disputes could be referred to 'the arbitration body for arbitration or the court'. The respondent opposed arbitration, arguing the clause favored court adjudication. The Supreme Court held that the clause, read with the parties' clear intention, constituted a valid arbitration clause offering two options. Since one party invoked arbitration, a sole arbitrator was appointed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.