1  

REPORTABLE  

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

 CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION  

 ARBITRATION PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 20 OF 2012   

 M/s Trans Asian Shipping Services (Pvt.) Ltd.       …Petitioner(s)     

VERSUS    

M/s Beacon Shipping Lines Ltd.       Represented by Mr. Mohammed S. Aslam   Managing Director & others    …Respondent(s)  

  O R D E R  

 Dipak Misra, CJI    

The petitioner, by this petition under Section 11(9) of the  

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity, „the Act‟), has  

prayed for appointment of arbitrator as per Clause 5(1) of the Agency  

Agreement dated 31.03.2010 between M/s Trans Asian Shipping  

Services (Pvt.) Ltd. and M/s Beacon Shipping Lines Ltd.   

2. The petitioner is an Indian company and the respondent  

company is registered in Bangladesh. It is averred that the petitioner is  

a multinational company having operations in the Indian                       

Sub-Continent, Middle East and South East Asia and is actively  

engaged in diversified activities with its core business being shipping  

especially transportation of containerized cargo. Its activities are

2  

related to various shipping operations all over the world and, therefore,  

it engages agents in various countries to undertake for and on behalf  

of it such functions. It involves their combined transport operations in  

the name of “Trans Asia Line”. It is urged that the valid subsisting  

agreement renewed from 31st March, 2010 was terminated only on  

31st March, 2012 with respect to the combined transport operations.  It  

is asserted that the respondent committed breach of various terms  

and conditions of the agency agreement leading to disputes between  

the parties. The petitioner is entitled to recover dues of USD  

134875.8829. Various documents have been filed to show how the  

amount is due.  It is asserted that though the petitioner company sent  

arbitration notice to the respondent requesting the latter to nominate  

the arbitrator within 15 days of the receipt of the same so that the  

arbitration board could deal with the disputes, yet there was no  

response from the respondent. Under these circumstances, the  

petitioner has prayed for appointment of a sole arbitrator.  

3.  Despite service of notice, there has been no appearance on  

behalf of the respondent no. 1 and other respondents who are the  

Managing Directors and Directors of the respondent no. 1 company.

3  

4. We have heard Mr. C.N. Sree Kumar, learned counsel for the  

petitioner. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to Clauses 18 and  

19 of the agreement. The said Clauses read as under:-  

“18. GOVERNING LAW  

This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in  accordance with the Indian Law.    19. DISPUTES AND ARBIRATION  Any dispute or difference arising under and or out of or in  connection with and/or relating to this Agreement, which  cannot be settled amicably between the parties, shall be  determined by arbitration and shall be governed by the  law of India.  Each party shall appoint one arbitrator with  power to such arbitrators to appoint, if necessary, an  umpire.  The language for arbitration shall be English, and  shall be governed by the Indian Law.”    

5. On a perusal of the aforesaid Clauses, there can be no trace of  

doubt that an arbitration clause exists and the same clearly stipulates  

that any dispute or difference arising under and/or out of or in  

connection with and/or relating to the Agreement unless amicably  

settled shall be determined by arbitration. The assertions in the  

petition clearly state that disputes have arisen and remain unsettled. In  

the obtaining factual matrix and keeping in view the existence of  

arbitration clause meant for determination of dispute by arbitration, we  

appoint Justice Gyan Sudha Misra, formerly a Judge of this Court, to  

act as the arbitrator to determine the dispute between the parties.     

4  

6. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the sole  

arbitrator.  Learned counsel for the petitioner is also at liberty to bring  

it to the notice of the arbitrator.  

7. The arbitration petition is, accordingly, allowed.  There shall be  

no order as to costs.    

           ..………………………….CJI.           (Dipak Misra)                   

..…………………………….J.              (A.M. Khanwilkar)   

              ..…..……………….………..J.  

                   (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud)  New Delhi;     September 19, 2018