India / 25 August 2008 / India, Supreme Court / Great Offshore Ltd v. Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Co / Arbitration Petition No. 10 of 2006
| Country | India |
| Court | India, Supreme Court |
| Date | 25 August 2008 |
| Parties | Great Offshore Ltd v. Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Co |
| Case number | Arbitration Petition No. 10 of 2006 |
| Source |
http://www.judis.nic.in (website of the decisions of the Supreme Court as well as several High Courts) |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | Great Offshore Ltd (“Great Offshore”, the owners) claimed that it entered into a charterparty agreement with Iranian Offshore Engineering (“Iranian Offshore”, the charterers), which provided for arbitration. It was uncontested between the parties that, after a series of negotiations, Great Offshore had faxed the charterparty agreement to Iranian Offshore, which was signed by Great Offshore. It was also accepted that, Iranian Offshore described the agreement as “ready” and represented that “it will be sent” to Great Offshore, although Iranian Offshore never returned the agreement. A dispute arose as to whether the vessel which Great Offshore had offered for charter was suitable for the needs of Iranian Offshore. Great Offshore applied to a single-judge bench of the Supreme Court in order to have an arbitrator appointed. Iranian Offshore contended that the Supreme Court did not have the power to appoint an arbitrator as the parties had not actually entered into the charterparty agreement which contained the arbitration clause. The particular contentions raised by Iranian Offshore were that (i) the agreement sent by Great Offshore to Iranian Offshore was a copy and not the original; (ii) it was stamped by only one and not both parties; (iii) Great Offshore had not signed every page; and, (iv) it was sent via fax. The Supreme Court granted Great Offshore’s application for the appointment of an arbitrator, finding that the parties had entered into the charterparty agreement and, consequently, there was an arbitration agreement in place. Dalveer Bhandari J, the judge forming the single bench of the Supreme Court deciding the issue, held that none of the requirements advanced by Iranian Offshore could be found in Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (the “1996 Act”) (incorporating, in modified language, Articles II(1) and (2) NYC). The learned judge held that there was no requirement that the arbitration agreement be an original or that parties stamp the agreement. The judge, applying Section 7(4)(b) of the 1996 Act, considered that the arbitration agreement, when sent by fax, constituted an agreement in writing as it was contained in “an exchange of letters, telex, telegrams or other means of telecommunication which provide a record of the agreement”. |
| see also : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
