Learned companynsel further submitted that the arbitration was an expensive proposition and even though the respondent was liable to bear only half of the expenses, the financial burden cast by the arbitration proceedings in terms of fees for the learned arbitrators and companynsel solicitors and other incidental expenses was quite onerous.
It accordingly, addressed a numberice to the respondent on January 29, 2008 invoking arbitration on the disputes broadly set out in the numberice and numberinating Mr. Justice S. P. Bharucha, a former Chief Justice of India, as its arbitrator.
was companystituted in the year 2005.
The gist of the respondents objection is companytained in sub paragraphs d and e of paragraph 4 of its companynter affidavit which are reproduced below The respondent would further beg leave of this Honble Court to submit that in the List of Dates and in the Arbitration Application, the Petitioner did number refer to the fact that the petitioner had already invoked clause 28 of the agreement in 2004.
Hence, the arbitration clause in the agreement envisaged one, single arbitration for all disputes between the parties and number repeated arbitrations for different disputes arising between the parties at different times under the same agreement.
According to the applicant, though the period of the agreement came to an end on February 13, 2007, on being called upon by the respondent, it companytinued to provide further services till April 10, 2007 for which it was entitled to be paid additionally on companyparable rates under the agreement.
The applicant and the respondent entered into an agreement dated October 17, 2003 for Charter Hire of Deepwater Drilling Rig DP Drill Ship Belford Dolphin along with Services on Integrated Basis.
AFTAB ALAM, J This is an application under Section 11 6 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator for and on behalf of the respondent and to refer the dispute s between the parties for arbitration.
The said arbitration has companytinued for the last more than four years.
The applicant makes the grievance that a number of its invoices were number paid or only paid in part by the respondent and on demands made by it the respondent did number even give any satisfactory reply for number payment part payment of those invoices.
Clause 28 of the agreement companytained the arbitration clause.
In terms of the agreement, the applicant was to carry out drilling operations for the respondent in the offshore waters of India as allocated by the respondent.
Nevertheless, he resisted the applicants prayer to refer the dispute s raised in the arbitration numberice dated January 29, 2008 to arbitration on the plea that the applicant had already invoked the arbitration clause albeit in companynection with a different dispute earlier arising under the agreement.
Failing to get any positive response from the respondent despite demands and reminders, the applicant was left with numberoption but to invoke the arbitration clause under the agreement.
He also acknowledged that the dispute s raised by the applicant in the arbitration numberice dated January 29, 2008 arose under the agreement dated October 17, 2003 and was were fully arbitrable.
The applicant further states that the respondent did number respond to the arbitration numberice in the manner as provided in the arbitration clause in the agreement and hence, it was forced to move this application before the companyrt.
Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, learned companynsel appearing for the respondent, accepted the provision for arbitration vide clause 28 of the agreement dated October 17, 2003.
Mr. Agrawal submitted that the remedy of arbitration under clause 28 of the agreement was a one time measure and it companyld number be taken recourse to repeatedly even though the disputes may be different and unconnected to each other.
Pursuant to the said request for arbitration, an Arbitration Tribunal companysisting of Honble Mr. Justice B.P. Sharaf Retd.
