Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Navin Pahwa, Ashish Mohan, Akshit Mago, Akshit Pradhan
For the Respondents: Parag Tripathi, Sonal K. Singh, Ayan De, Shivang Singh, Anmol Adhrit, Sukanya Lal

The case involves a dispute over the appointment of a sole arbitrator in an arbitration proceeding. The key facts are as follows:

• The parties had an arbitration agreement that stipulated the appointment of a sole arbitrator by a designated authority, which in this case was the Chairman of the Airports Authority of India (!) (!) .
• The arbitration was initiated due to disputes arising from a license agreement for ground handling services at airports, which included an arbitration clause (!) (!) .
• The respondent appointed the arbitrator unilaterally, which the appellants contended was invalid because the appointment violated statutory provisions that require the arbitrator to be eligible under the law, specifically under the amended Section 12(5) and the Seventh Schedule (!) (!) .
• The appellants argued that the appointment was void ab initio because the arbitrator was ineligible due to his relationship with the respondent, which fell under the categories listed in the Seventh Schedule, making him de jure ineligible to act as an arbitrator (!) (!) (!) .
• The appellants further claimed that their participation in the arbitration proceedings did not constitute a waiver of their right to object to the appointment, especially since no express written agreement waiving such ineligibility was made after the dispute arose (!) (!) (!) .
• The courts examined whether the appointment was unilateral and invalid, whether the parties had waived their rights through conduct or agreement, and whether objections could be raised at different stages of the arbitration process, including during Section 34 proceedings (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• Ultimately, the courts found that the appointment was indeed ineligible and unilateral, and that no valid waiver had been established. The appointment was declared void, and the arbitral awards based on such appointment were set aside, allowing for the possibility of initiating fresh arbitration proceedings (!) (!) .

In summary, the case centers on whether the appointment of the arbitrator was legally valid, focusing on issues of eligibility, unilateral appointment, and waiver of rights, with the courts ruling that the appointment was invalid due to statutory violations.