Contrary to what the ECI stated, COFRE argued that, in this case, the appointment of an arbitrator had been governed by clauses 64(a) (a) and 64(a) (a) (a) (a) (ii) of the GCC, when the applicability of section 12, paragraph 5 of the Act was repealed and the court therefore consisted of a group consisting of three practising railway officers or two acting officers and one officer retirement. The Cofre also drew the attention of the Supreme Court to section 64, paragraph 3, point b) of the CCG, where the applicability of Section 12(5) of the Act has not been overturned and the clause stipulating that the court of arbitration is composed of three retired railway officials, who are not less than the rank of principal administrator. Referring to Parmar Construction4 and Pradeep Vinod Construction5, COFRE submitted that while the agreement specifically provides for the appointment of a group of arbitrators, the appointment should be linked to the agreement and the appointment of the independent arbitrator is at odds with the GCC, which governs the parties for the appointment of arbitrators. 7. Replaced by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (Amendment Act) of 2015 for „supreme judges of several high courts or their designated judges, the Supreme Judge or his designated persons to whom the application was first“ (w.e.f.f 23-10-2015).8. Replaced by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (Modified Act), 2015 w.e.f.f 23.10.2015. Before the substitution, the subsection as: Government of India introduced in a law amendment in 20153, by S.11 (6A) was introduced in the above case sms tea (supra) judgment of the Supreme Court of India, decoupling the powers of the courts according to S.11, to the consideration of the existence of an arbitration agreement. Since SBP`s decision against Patel Engineering AIR 2006 SC 450, the court has been empowered to make a provisional decision on its own jurisdiction for the processing of the arbitration application as well as on the existence of an online claim, that is, a claim that was not made by limitation. Different categories of issues within the jurisdiction and jurisdiction of the Court of Justice, during the exercise of Section 11 powers, were put by the Supreme Court (DER SC) in the subsequent case of the National Insurance Company Limited v. Boghara Polyfab Private Limited (2009) 1 CSC 267, with respect to (i) questions that the Supreme Justice or his decision named n. , found; (ii) issues on which it may also decide, i.e. whether the parties` claims are based, and (iii) issues that should be left to the arbitral tribunal.
The decision on the existence of an arbitration agreement is a minor but important power exercised by the courts. Section 11 (6A) has been inserted to facilitate the application of a system of real costs, as applied in the United Kingdom and other jurisdictions, against misunderstood measures.