印度最高院首次委托孟买国际仲裁中心（MCIA）指定仲裁员

更新时间：2017-08-16 15:34:16   张振安 临时仲裁ADA 编辑：lianluobu  点击次数：1511次

印度最高院首次委托孟买国际仲裁中心（MCIA）指定仲裁员

这是印度国内法院第一次援引2015年《仲裁和调解法案》第十一条规定，要求一个独立机构在仲裁案件中指定一名仲裁员。

最高法院告知孟买国际仲裁中心(MCIA)在知名制药公司 Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd 和 Nigeria-based Falma Organics Limited之间的国际争端中指定一名仲裁员，根据法律专家说，这对印度仲裁有重大推动作用。

根据该法案第十一条规定，如果一方当事人未能在收到另一方要求其指定仲裁员的要求之日起30日内指定一名仲裁员，在一方当事人的请求下，可以由首席大法官或首席大法官所指定的个人或者机构进行指定。

“我们认为该案件是仲裁员指定的参考案例。因此，我们将案件提交至孟买仲裁中心来指定一名仲裁员进行仲裁，”由Adarsh Kumar Goel法官和 Uday Umesh Lalit法官通过的最高法院裁定这样写道。

根据该裁定，双方当事人被告知于2017年7月10日到孟买国际仲裁中心指定一名仲裁员。当事人经联系，MCIA确认将按照法院裁定指定一名仲裁员。将马上在孟买开始仲裁员指定程序。

“我们对于最高法院对MCIA的信任感到非常高兴。我们要提高印度仲裁质量法院的作用不可或缺，该裁定是一个非常积极的举措。”执行最高院裁定的MCIA首席执行官Madhukeshwar Desai 说道。

根据最高院裁定，Sun Pharma 和 FalmaOrganics 之间的纠纷涉及2004年4月签订的经销协议。2014年，Sun Pharma 请求最高院在该纠纷中指定一名仲裁员。在2015年8月，最高法院让双方当事人到孟买高等法院调解中心友好解决该争端。

2016年2月，在被告知双方公司在调解之后已经同意了友好解决后，最高院撤销了该案件。然而，2017年1月9日，由于“和解方案未履行”SunPharma 再次请求最高法院指定一名仲裁员。

迄今为止，由于欠缺可靠的仲裁机构、司法过渡干预、缺乏专门的仲裁协会以及对国内公共政策概念缺失清晰界定，印度还不是一个仲裁解决争端的首选之地。根据新加坡国际仲裁中心所做的一项研究，该机构每年审理的争端中，几乎30%案件涉及到印度企业。同时，在2001年和2013—2014年间所解决的争端数量增长了10倍。

 

【英文版】

SC tells MCIA to appoint arbitrator in global dispute

This is the first time in India when a courtin the country has invoked section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2015, asking an independent body to appoint an arbitrator in a matter.

The Supreme Court has told the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA) to appoint an arbitrator in an international dispute betweentop drug maker Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd and Nigeria-based Falma Organics Limited, signalling a major boost to arbitration in the country,according to legal experts.

This is the first time in India when a court in the country has invoked section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2015, asking an independent body to appoint an arbitrator in a matter.

Under section 11 of the Act, if a party fails to appoint an arbitrator within 30 days from the receipt of a request to do so from the otherparty, the appointment can be made, upon request of a party, by the Chief Justice or any person or institution designated by him.

“We are of the view that case for reference to the arbitrator is made out. Accordingly we refer the matter to the Arbitration Centre in Mumbaito appoint an arbitrator for arbitration,” said the Supreme Court order passed by Justices Adarsh Kumar Goel and Uday Umesh Lalit.

According to the order, both Sun Pharma and Falma Organics were told to appear before the MCIA on July 10 for the MCIA to appoint an arbitrator. When contacted the MCIA confirmed that an arbitrator would be appointed as directed by the court. Proceedings in the case will shortly begin in Mumbai.

“We are extremely pleased with the faith that the Supreme Court has reposed in the MCIA. We believe that the courts are integral to improving the quality of arbitration in India, and this is an extremely positive step in that direction,” said Madhuke shwar Desai chief executive officer of MCIA about the SC order.

According to Supreme Court order, the dispute between Sun Pharma and Falma Organics pertains to a distribution agreement of April 2004.

In 2014, Sun Pharma approached the SC to appoint an arbitrator in the case. In August 2015, the apex court sent both the parties to the mediation centre at the Bombay High Court to amicably settle the dispute.

In February 2016, the SC disposed of the case after it was informed that both the firms have agreed for an amicable settlement after mediation. However, on January 9, Sun Pharma once again approached the apex court to appoint an arbitrator as it said the “settlement was not effected”. Sofar, India has hardly been a preferred seat for settling disputes through arbitration due to lack of credible arbitral institution, excessive judicial intervention, absence of a dedicated arbitration bar and lack of clarity on concept of public policy in the country. According to a study conducted by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, almost 30 per cent of the disputes it hears annually relate to matters involving Indian businesses. Also, the number of disputes it settled between 2001 and 2013-14 has shown a ten-fold increase.

By Indian Express