Holding

When an arbitration agreement is silent on the number of arbitrators, Section 10(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 mandates a sole arbitrator, and a subsequent policy cannot override the contractual terms.

Summary

The dispute arose from a subcontract between Sime Darby Engineering (Petitioner) and Engineers India Ltd (Respondent) for offshore fabrication work under an ONGC project. The parties' contract contained an arbitration clause that was silent on the number of arbitrators, and the Respondent relied on a policy stating that contracts exceeding Rs 10 crore should have a three‑member tribunal. The Petitioner argued that, under Section 10(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a silence on the number of arbitrators mandates a sole arbitrator, and that the policy could not override the contractual terms. The Court examined the clause, the Act, and UNCITRAL Model Law, emphasizing party autonomy and the statutory provision that a sole arbitrator is the default where the parties have not specified otherwise. It held that the arbitration clause, read with Section 10(2), required a sole arbitrator and that the later policy decision could not modify the contract. Consequently, the Court appointed Justice D.P. Wadhwa as the sole arbitrator and allowed the petition.

Issues considered

Whether an arbitration clause silent on the number of arbitrators mandates a sole arbitrator under Section 10(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Whether a policy decision prescribing a three‑member tribunal for contracts above Rs 10 crore can override the parties' contractual arbitration clause.
Whether the expression 'arbitrator(s)' in the contract affects the interpretation of the number of arbitrators.

Legislation cited

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996s. 10(1), s. 10(2), s. 11, s. 2(d)

Subjects

ArbitrationNumber of arbitratorsSection 10Arbitration clause interpretationSole arbitratorParty autonomyUNCITRAL Model LawPolicy decisionContract cost threshold

Judgment

[2009] 11 S.C.R. 287

SIME DARBY ENGINEERING SON. BHD. A
v.
ENGINEERS INDIA LTD.
(Arbitration Petition No. 3 of 2009)
JULY 22, 2009
B
[ASHOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]

_.., ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996:

ss.2(1)(d), (f), 10(2) and 11 - International Commercial c
Arbitr3tion - Appointment of arbitral tribunal - Number of
arbitrators - Dispute regarding - Held: In the instant case, the
relevant arbitration clause of agreement is silent about1: the
number of arbitrator - Therefore, s.10(2) squarely applies·-
In view of the arbitration clause read with s. 10(2)1 clear that
D
'arbitral tribunal in the instant case would be consisting of a
..., sole arbitrator - Policy decision that for contracts costing over
a particular amount B committee of arbitrators would be
composed of, cannot change the contractual clause -
Besides, the policy decision coming into force after the
contract between the parties had been entered into, the said E
policy decision cannot override the contract - UNCITRAL .
Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration - Articles .
2(b) and 10(2)-Administrative Law-Policy decision vis-a7 vis,
~ contractual clause.
~ 'F
s. 10(2) - Number of arbitrators - Held: Parties' autonomy
in the arbitration agreement must be given due importance
in construing intention of parties - Parties have freedom to
change the number of arbitrators even after the contract has
been entered, and by mutual consent parties may amend the G
contract - Interpretation of commercial arbitration agreements.
-t. ·---1
Redfern and Hunter, Law and Practice of International
Commercial Arbitration, IV Edition, 2004, page 185 and Mustil
287 H
288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R.

A and Boyd on Commercial Arbitration, 2nd Edition, page 174,
referred ·to.

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Arbitration Petition No.
3 of 2009.

B Petition Under Section 11 Sub section (5) r/w Sub section
(12) of The Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

Oipankar Gupta, Anil Bhatnagar, Amit Dhingra, Aman ~
Leekha and Dua Associates for the Petitioners.
c Mukul Rohtagi, Syed Naqvi, Namrata ,Kapoor Sharma,
Diksha Rai Ninad Laud, Nikhil Rohtagi and Surya Kant for the
Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered
D
ORDER
;i
1. This petition has been filed under Section 11 of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (hereinafter referred "the
said Act") by the petitioner praying for appointment of the
E arbitral tribunal to adjudicate the claims and disputes between
the petitioner and the respondent.

2. The petitioner is a company incorporated and existing
under the laws of Malaysia and is engaged in the business of :iv

F fabrication of all types of offshore and onshore structures and t>'-
complexes. The respondent on the other hand is the company
incorporated under the (Indian) Companies Act, 1956 and is
inter alia engaged in the business of providing engineering and
related technical services for petroleum refineries and other
G industrial projects.
3. The necessary facts of the case are that Oil and Natural
Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC) invited a tender vide
~ .. ?--

notification dated November 17, 2003 for carrying work of
Survey, Design, Engineering, Procurement, Fabrication,
H
SIME DARBY ENGINEERING SON. BHD. v. 289
ENGINEERS INDIA LTD.
~
Anticorrosion and Weight coating, Laying of submarine pipeline, A
Installation of SPM, Load out, Tie-down/Sea-fastening and
various other jobs in respect of Mumbai High South Field
offshore site.

4. In connection with the said tender issued by ONGC, B
respondent and petitioner entered into a Business Agreement
on 22/01/2004 by which it was agreed that the respondent shall
-{.
quote as a bidder against the said Tender with the petitioner
as a sub~contractor for identified scope of work. The tender was
awarded by ONGC to the respondent by notice dated 10/03/
2004 for the said fabrication and installation of D-1 Well-Cum-
c
Water Injection Platform at Mumbai High South field Off-shore
site on a turnkey basis for a sum of US $ 62,3000,000/- and
thereafter an agreement between the respondent and ONGC
was entered into. Then, the respondent entered into a
subcontract with the petitioner which was signed on 29th of D
.i.,- October 2004 and for Fabrication, Load Out and Transportation
of Jacket, Piles, Conductors and Deck for D-1 Well-Cum-Water
Injection Platform Project of ONGC 13t Bombay High South field
off-shore site for a lump sum subcontract price of US $
20, 162,460/-. In terms of the said subcontract the petitioner E
carried out its scope of work in terms of its contractual
obligations. As it did not receive the full payment from the

-
-~
respondent disputes and differences between them cropped up.
These disputes between the parties remained unresolved
despite some joint negotiations between them. F

5. The petitioner by jts Advocate's notice on 19/02/2008
invoked the arbitration Clause and referred. all disputes and
differences between them and respondent to arbitration
including its claim of US $ 14,244,$12.02 and claim for loss G
ans:i damage on account of financing charges and foreign
~1 exchange and such other damages. In the said letter the
petitioner also suggested the names of a few arbitrators. The
respondent by its letter dated 26/02/2008 did not accept the
stand of the petitioner and stated that petitioner's stand to
H
290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] t1 S.C.R.
_,_,,___
A proceed with arbitration is premature and the respondent
requested the petitioner to withdraw the Notice Invoking
Arbitration and come out with a viable proposal to create a joint
settlement mechanism to settle the dispute amicably.

,6. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner tried to
B
show before this Court that several meetings were held
between the parties for settling the dispute amicably but the
said efforts ultimately did not succeed. However before this ..,..__
Court the learned counsel for the respondent fairly accepted the
position but disputes between the parties virtually cannot be
c resolved amicably anymore and the matter should be resolved
through arbitration.

7~ Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that he
does not dispute that there are arbitrable disputes between the
D parties. Nor does he dispute.that the petitioner has invoked the
arbitration clause between the parties. The only point on which ?I.
the case is argued is that in this case. the arbitration panel must
consist of three arbitrators, one is to be nominated by each
party and the third arbitrator is to be chosen by the nominated
E arbitrators. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other t:iand
did not accept -the said_ stand of the learned counsel for the -
respondent and submitted_ that in· terms of the agreem~nt in this·
case dispute can be decided by th~ sole: arbitrator. Matter was
actually heard before this Court on the ~for~said coptrovetSY. );.--

F
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
admittedly the arbitration clauses in the contract which govern
the rights of the parties in the matter of arbitration are as follows:

"12.1 This Subcontract shall be governed by and construed
G in accordance with the Laws of India. The Courts at Delhi·
shall have sole jurisdiction.

12.2 The Parties shall endeavour to resolve any dispute
or difference amicably through joint negotiation and when
-necessary by reference to the Chief Executive of Ell and
H
,.
I

..___ SIME DARBY ENGINEERING SON. BHD. v. 291
ENGINEERS INDIA LTD.
-or
SSE. If any dispute or difference, which cannot be mutually A
resolved by the parties, the same shall be referred to
<"
arbitration in accordance with the provisions contained in
Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which is
generally in accordance with UNCITRAL rules.
B
12.3.The arbitrator(s) shall give reasoned award in respect
of each dispute or difference referred to him. The award
~
as aforesaid shall be final, conclusive and binding on all
the Parties of this Subcontract in accordance ~ith the Law.·

12.4. The venue of the arbitration shall be at New Delhi, c
India."

9. By relying on para 12.2, learned counsel submitted that
the said clause does not indicate about the number of arbitrators
to be appointed while reciting that the matter be referred to D
y arbitration in accordance with the provisions contained in the
Indian Arbitration and Conciliation, 1996, which is generally in
accordance with the UNCITRAL rules .

.10. Learned counsel also referred to and relied on Section
1O of the said Act which deals with the composition of Arbitral E
Tribunals under Chapter Ill of the said Act. Section 10 (1) and
\. 10 (2) are as under:-
-:-- -.,.( --"10. Number of arbi(rators. - (1) The parties are free to
determine the number of arbitrators, provided that such F
number shall not be an even number.

(2) Failing the dete~mination referred.to in sub-section (1),
the arbitral tribunal shall consist ofa s-0le arbitrator."

11. Relying on Clause 12.2 and Section 10, learned G
-,...--f · counsel.submits that it is clear that arbitration in this case shall
be held by a sole or a single arbitrator. He particularly
emphasised Clause 12.2 of the agreement and Section 10(2)
of the Act which says that failing the determination referred to
in sub-section 1, the Arbitral Tribunal shall consist of a sole H
292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R. .,..

A arbitrator. -- ~'I

12. Learned counsel submits that in the instant case .....
Clause 12.2 does not indicate the number of arbitrators and in
that event Sub-section (2) of Section 10 would apply.
B 13. Learned counsel further submits that the matter should ~
not be referred to three arbitrators as that would prolong
arbitration proceedings as three arbitrators would have to adjust
r-
their timings. Apart from that the same would result in
considerable escalation of cost.
c
14: Learned counsel has referred to a judgment of this
Court in support ofhis contention that it has been judicially
recognized that reference of a dispute to a pariel of three
arbitrafors escalates the cost and more so it is very time
D consuming.
->.t
15. .Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand
submits that reference of the matter to a panel of three
arbitrators is not ruled out if the arbitration clause is properly
construed alongwith Section 10 of the said Act.
E
•}
16. Learned counsel admitted that Clause 12.2 is silent - i,'-
about the number of arbitrators but Clause 12.3 refers to an j
expression 'arbitrator(s)'. By relying on the said expression in
Clause 12.3 learned counsel submits that the arbitration clause )<· -· J-

F thus postulates the appointment of more than one arbitrator. As
there cannot be two arbitrators which is an even number; the
minimum number of arbitrators other than one would be three.

17. Learned counsel also submitted that while clause 12 .2
stipulates that the arbitration between the parties would· be
G
governed u~der the said Act it also says in clause 12.2 that it
shall generally be in accordance with UNCITRAL rules. . t...,..,

18. Learned counsel also submitted that they have a policy
that in matters involving high stakes above Rupees ten crores,
H it should be referred to a Committee on panel of arbitrators. In
SIME DARBY ENGINEERING SON. BHD. v. 293

- -..,,,.
ENGINEERS INDIA LTD.
support of this submission, learned counsel referred to a A
Standard Contract Clauses which have been disclosed in the
counter affidavit filed by the respondent and reliance was
placed o'n the following clause:-

"The Arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the
B
Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. For
Contracts costing upto Rs.10 Crores, a Sole Arbitrator
should be appointed. For Contracts costing over Rs.10
-< Crores, a Committee of Arbitrators should be appointed
composed of one Arbitrator to be nominated by the
Contractor, one to be nominated by the Owner and the third
c
Arbitrator, who will act as a Chairman but not as umpire,
to be chosen jointly by the two nominees. The decision of
majority of Arbitrators shall be final and binding on both
parties."
D
19. Learned counsel also relied on a passage from
.'r
Redfern and Hunter, Law and Practice of International
Commercial Arbitration, Fourth Edn., 2004, page 185, which
is as under:-
E
"In modern practice, despite the advantages of a sole
arbitrator, particularly in arbitrations involving heavy stakes,

... ...
preference is for appointment of three arbitrators, albeit
not without rationale. Particularly, in the area of
"international commercial arbitration" involving complex
problems peculiar to special types of disputes, eg,
F
engineering, construction, maritime and international
trading disputes, a sole arbitrator, many a time may not
be suitable for resolution of such disputes. In such
situations, the common practice is to appoint a tribual
comprising of three arbitrators. Even though it may involve G
more expense and delay than a sole arbitrator arbitration,
it is still preferred as it is more effective.· 'An arbitral
tribunal of three arbitrators is likely to prove more
satisfactory to the parties, and the ultimate award is more
likely to be accepted to them." H
294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R.

A 20. The learned counsel argued if the aforesaid stipulations ~-
in clauses 12.2 and 12.3 of the agreement and Sections 10(1)
and 10(2) are read harmoniously with UNCITRAL model rules,
the appointment of- a panel of three arbitrators in this case
cannot be ruled out.
B
21. These being the rival contentions-of the parties, I am
.unable to accept the contentions put-forth by learned counsel
for the. respondent for the reasons discussed hereinbelow.

22. If one looks at the Clause 12.2 of the agreement it
C should be clear if the disputes and differences are not resolved ·
mutually, the same shall be referred to arbitration in accordance
with the provisions of the said Act. Clause 12.3 stipulates the
requirement on the part of the arbitrator(s) to give reasons.

0 23. The Arbitration Tribunal as defined under Section 2(d)
-of the Act means "a sole- arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators".

-24. Section 10(2) of the Act is very relevant in order _to
resolve the controversy in this case in as much as Section 10(2)
makes it very clear where the number of arbitrator is not
E determined, the arl:>itral tribunaLshall consistofa:sole arbitrator-.
In this connection if UNCITRAL rules are referred the position
will remain the same. UNCITRAL model law on International
Commercial Arbitration also accepts the same -definition of
Arbitration Tribunal in Article 2(b). Article 10 of ~hose rules is
F almost identical with Section 10 of the said Act Article 2(b) and
Article 10 of those rules are extracted hereinbelow:-

"Article 2. Definition and rules of interpretation - For the
purposes of this Law:

(a) xxx xxx

(b) "arbitral tribunal" means a sole arbitrator or a panel ).-___,,
of arbitrators."

H "Article 10. Number of arbitrators - ( 1) The parties are free
296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009L 11 S.C.R.

A in consultation with colleagues in an endeavour to arrive at an ,.,,,.-
agreed or majority determination of the matters in dispute." '
,)
(Page 184)

30. Similar opinion has been expressed in Russell on
B Arbitration 23rd Edition. At page 129, paragraph 4-035 with
reference to arbitration it has been said "Where no choice is
made, the law implied a reference to a tribunal consisting of a
sole arbitrator." In fact Section 15(3) of the (English) Arbitration
Act, 1996 provides for the same. 'r- ,Y

c 31. Mustil and Boyd on Commercial Arbitration, 2nd
Edition also contains the same statement of law. At page 174
of the said book it has been provided that "an arbitration
agreement calls for a reference to a single arbitrator, either if
it contains an express stipulation to that effect, or if it is silent
D as to the mode of arbitration."
'
32. In the instant case, the arbitration clause 12.2 is silent
,
as to the number of arbitrator. The said clause re?d with
Section 10(2) of the Act makes it very clear that arbitral tribunal
E in the instant case would be consisting of a sole arbitrator.

33. The learned counsel for the respondent has referred
to its policy decision which has been quoted hereinabove.
Such policy decision cannot change the contra\;fual clause. In
any event the contract between the parties was entered into in ~
F 2004. The said policy decision came into effect in 2005.
Therefore, the said policy decision cannot in any way override
contract between the parties.

34. The parties autonomy in the arbitration agreement must
G be given due importance in construing the intention of the
parties. In so far as reference to the expression 'arbitrator(s)'
in clause 12.3 is concerned, the same does not in any way )o--r
affect the intention of the parties in clause 12.2.

35. It is noted in this connection that parties have freedom
H
SIME DAR6Y !;NGINEERING SON. SHP. v. 297
ENGINEERS INDIA LTD.

to change the number of arbitrator even after the contract has A
been entered and by mutual consent the parties may amend
the contract. If that takes place, in such cm eventuality cla1,1se
12.3 provides that the arbitrator or arbitrators have to give.
reasoned award in respect of each dispute and differencH
referred. Here also the expression which has been used is 'him' . B
which also points to a sole arbitrator.

36. It is clec;1rly provided in the said Act that an arbitrCll
tribunal can, if necessary, take the help of experts in terms of
Section 27 of· the said Act. If the sole arbitrator requires the · C
assistance of an expert it can always take such assistance.
. ;:
37. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned counsel for the respondent '
has fairly submitted that if his argument is not accepted by the .
Court then his client has no objection to the appointment of
Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.P . Wadhwa, a former Judge of this D
Court, to be the sole arbitrator in this case. The name of Justice
Wadhwa also finds place in the li:;t of names suggested by the
petitioner. Therefore, appointment of Justice Wadhwa is fairly
by consensus.
E
38. Since I am unable to accept the argument of learned
counsel for the respondent, I accordingly appoint Justice D.P, ·
Wadhwa, a former Judge of this Court, the sole arbitrator in
this case.

39. The Hon'ble arbitrator is requested to decide the F
dispute as early as possible and preferably within a period of
six months from the date of entering upon the reference. The
terms of arbitration proceeding are left to be decided by
learned arbitrator.
G
40. The petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to
costs.

R.P. Petition allowed.

H