Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.
Jsw Steel Limited – Appellant
Versus
South Western Railway & Anr. – Respondents
SLP (C) No.9462 of 2022
Decided On : 16-08-2022
Arbitrator Appointment - Conformity with Legal Precedents - The court directed the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for constituting a larger Bench to resolve the doubts regarding the correctness of the decision in Central Organisation For Railway Electrification and the appointment of the Arbitrator.
Fact of the Case:
The Arbitrator appointed by the respondent made an award in the absence of participation from the petitioner. Doubts were raised regarding the correctness of the decision in Central Organisation For Railway Electrification, based on which the appointment of the Arbitrator was made.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for constituting a larger Bench to resolve the doubts regarding the correctness of the decision in Central Organisation For Railway Electrification and the appointment of the Arbitrator. The operation of the Award dated 30.03.2022 was stayed pending such consideration.
Issues: Appointment of Arbitrator, Correctness of Decision in Central Organisation For Railway Electrification
Ratio Decidendi: Doubts regarding the correctness of the decision in Central Organisation For Railway Electrification led the court to direct the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for constituting a larger Bench.
Final Decision: The operation of the Award dated 30.03.2022 was stayed pending consideration by a larger Bench.
ORDER
1. The basic issue involved in the instant matter is whether the appointment of the Arbitrator was in conformity with the law laid down by this Court in TRF Ltd. v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd, (2017) 8 SCC 377; and Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd., (2020) 20 SCC 760.
2. The High Court has gone by the decision rendered by a Bench of three-Judges of this Court in Central Organisation For Railway Electrification v. ECL-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV), A Joint Venture Company, (2020) 14 SCC 712, which decision had distinguished the applicability of TRF Ltd. (supra) and Perkins Eastman Architects DPC (supra) to the fact situation involved therein.
3. It has been brought to our notice that subsequently, a Bench of three-Judges of this Court in Union of India v. M/s. Tantia Constructions Ltd., [SLP (Civil) No. 12670 of 2020], vide its order dated 11.01.2021, prima facie expressed its disagreement with the view taken in Central Organisation For Railway Electrification (supra) and requested the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India to constitute a larger Bench to look into the correctness of the decision in Central Organisation For Railway Electrification (supra).
4. In the present case, after the appointment of the Arbitrator nominated by the respondent herein, the proceedings took place before the Arbitrator and award was passed on 30.03.2022.
5. The copy of the Award shows that there was no participation on part of the present petitioner. Further, none had stepped into the box on behalf of the respondents in support of its case.
6. We need not, at this stage, go into the correctness of such Award, as those questions are not presently arising for our consideration. It is however, quite clear that the correctness of the decision in Central Organisation For Railway Electrification (supra), based on which the appointment of the Arbitrator was made and the matter had proceeded before the Arbitrator, was doubted by a subsequent Bench of three Judges.
7. In the circumstances, we direct that the papers of the present matter be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for constituting a larger Bench.
8. Since the issue has been re-occurring, we may observe that it would be in the fitness of things that the question is resolved at an early date.
9. Pending such consideration, the effect and operation of the Award dated 30.03.2022 shall remain stayed.
Doubts regarding the correctness of legal precedents can lead to the matter being referred to a larger Bench for resolution.
Disqualified arbitrators cannot appoint successors; unilateral requests do not waive statutory disqualifications under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the procedure for appointing arbitrators under the amended Act and the modified Clause 64 of the GCC, emphasizing the ineligibility of certain ....
The court affirmed that the claimant must secure the necessary Airport Entry Permits and upheld the arbitration award, ruling no breach by the respondent; consent regarding the arbitrator's appointme....
The court ruled that the appointment of arbitrators from the respondent's panel was valid, maintaining that established legal precedent surrounding impartiality does not support the petitioner's clai....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of ensuring the independence and impartiality of arbitrators in the appointment process, as emphasized in relevant decisions of the ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the unilateral appointment of an Arbitrator by a party with an interest in the matter is impermissible, as it could compromise the impartialit....
The court reinforced that impartiality and independence of arbitrators is essential, disqualifying those with vested interests under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
