BIMCO Default Arbitration Clause Doesn't Violate Public Policy Against Unilateral Appointments: Telangana High Court on S.48 Arbitration Act - 2025-06-27

Legal Information & Analysis.

Telangana High Court Upholds Foreign Maritime Award, Rules BIMCO Default Arbitration Clause is Not Unilaterally Appointed

HYDERABAD – The Telangana High Court, in a significant ruling on international commercial arbitration, has allowed the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award for over USD 450,000, holding that the appointment of a sole arbitrator under the standard BIMCO Dispute Resolution Clause does not violate the public policy of India. The bench, comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao , dismissed the award-debtor's objections, clarifying the distinction between a contractually agreed default appointment mechanism and an impermissible unilateral appointment.

---

Case Background: A Charter Party Dispute

The dispute arose from a Charter Party agreement dated September 29, 2021, between St Frosso Shipping Corporation, a Liberian company (Award Holder), and M/s Eastern Multitrans Logistics Pvt Ltd, an Indian entity (Award Debtor). The agreement was for the charter of the vessel M.V. FROSSO K.

After the vessel was re-delivered, St Frosso claimed an outstanding amount of USD 443,310.47, which Eastern Multitrans acknowledged in an email dated January 27, 2022. When payment was not made, St Frosso invoked the arbitration clause, which stipulated London -seated arbitration governed by English law and the BIMCO Dispute Resolution Clause 2015. St Frosso appointed its arbitrator and gave Eastern Multitrans the contractually required 14-day notice to appoint its own.

Eastern Multitrans failed to nominate an arbitrator within the timeframe. Consequently, St Frosso , following the BIMCO procedure, appointed its nominee as the sole arbitrator. Despite being notified at every stage, Eastern Multitrans did not participate in the proceedings. On May 3, 2022, the arbitrator passed an award in favour of St Frosso . When Eastern Multitrans failed to comply, St Frosso filed an execution petition before the Telangana High Court to enforce the foreign award.

---

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent/Award-Debtor's Contentions:

The respondent, M/s Eastern Multitrans , raised three primary objections to the enforcement of the award under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996:

1. Violation of Public Policy: The appointment of the sole arbitrator was unilateral and therefore contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law and basic notions of morality and justice. They cited Supreme Court judgments in TRF Limited , Perkins Eastman , and Central Organisation for Railway Electrification to argue that a party cannot be a judge in its own cause.
2. Lack of Proper Notice: The company claimed it was not given proper notice of the arbitrator's appointment or the arbitral proceedings, stating it did not "see" the emails sent to its official addresses.
3. Defective Petition: The execution petition was improperly verified, with an inconsistency in the affidavit regarding the location of notarization.

Petitioner/Award-Holder's Submissions:

St Frosso Shipping Corporation countered that:

1. The appointment procedure was in strict accordance with the BIMCO clause, which both parties had agreed to. This clause provides an equal opportunity for both parties to appoint an arbitrator and only allows for a sole arbitrator appointment upon the default of one party.
2. The respondent was kept informed at every stage via email to its confirmed addresses, and their own broker had acknowledged receipt and forwarding of these communications.
3. The respondent had acknowledged the debt, even after arbitration commenced, and its refusal to participate was a deliberate choice.
4. The verification defect was an inadvertent error, and the supporting Notary and Apostille documents clearly showed the petition was properly executed in Greece.

---

Court’s Analysis and Reasoning

The High Court meticulously addressed and rejected each of the respondent's arguments.

On Procedural Objections:

The Court quickly dismissed the claims of improper notice and defective verification. It found overwhelming documentary evidence, including emails to the respondent’s own confirmed email IDs and acknowledgments from their broker, proving that the respondent was fully aware of the proceedings. The Court noted, " The stubborn refusal of the respondent to acknowledge the emails... demonstrates that the respondent deliberately chose to avoid the arbitration process ." The verification issue was deemed an inadvertent error that was not fatal to the petition.

On Unilateral Appointment and Public Policy:

The core of the judgment lay in its analysis of the "unilateral appointment" argument. The Court distinguished the present case from the precedents cited by the respondent.

> The Court observed: “It would be an ill-advised exercise to make an argument of unilaterality solely based on a recent decision of the Supreme Court where the Arbitration Clause was entirely different to the one at hand.”

It highlighted that in cases like Perkins Eastman and Central Organisation , the arbitration clauses gave one party the exclusive right to appoint or choose from a panel created by it, creating an inherent imbalance. In contrast, the BIMCO clause provided for a fair process:

> “The Arbitration Agreement in the present case is democratically-worded giving both parties the right to nominate its Arbitrator... The provision of a Sole Arbitrator to carry the Arbitration forward is a mechanism of expediency and not of unilaterality... The Sole Arbitrator’s appointment is only legitimised where the second party fails to act within the stipulated timeframe.”

The Court found that the BIMCO procedure mirrors the principles in Section 17 of the English Arbitration Act, 1996, which governs the arbitration. It concluded that the respondent was not denied its right to participate but forfeited it through inaction. Therefore, the appointment was not unilateral, and enforcing the award would not contravene the public policy of India.

---

Final Decision

The Telangana High Court found that the respondent had failed to furnish any proof to satisfy the conditions for refusal of enforcement under Section 48 of the Arbitration Act. Highlighting that the respondent had unequivocally acknowledged the debt even before the award, the Court found no factual or legal defense.

The Court allowed the execution petition, paving the way for St Frosso Shipping Corporation to recover the awarded sum of over USD 443,310, £7,000, and interest from M/s Eastern Multitrans Logistics Pvt Ltd. The ruling reinforces the pro-enforcement stance of Indian courts towards foreign arbitral awards and provides crucial clarity on the validity of default appointment mechanisms common in international trade contracts.