Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
Manjula, W/o. Late Manjunath – Appellant
Versus
Shriram Transport Finance Co Ltd., Represented By Its G P A Holder Keshavamurthy S. L. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners seek quashing of arbitration proceedings (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioners argue against lack of notice and appointment of arbitrator (Para 4) |
| 3. shriram's assertions on arbitration agreement and appointment (Para 5) |
| 4. court's determination of the key issues (Para 6) |
| 5. writ petition's maintainability and jurisdiction discussion (Para 8 , 12) |
| 6. court's observations on arbitration process and validity (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 7. final verdict and order for petition (Para 13) |
ORDER :
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.)
1. The Petitioners are before this Court seeking the following reliefs :
i. To quash the entire proceedings bearing No. A.C.No.1032/2019 & 1033/2019 pending before the 2nd Respondent Arbitrator at Annexure A and B;
ii. Issue such other suitable writ or order on the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Petitioner No.1 claims to be the widow, and Petitioner No.2 claims to be the son of Manjunath, who expired on 25-08-2018. The said Manjunath had availed two loans, from 1st Respondent - Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Shriram’).
3. On the ground that the said Manjunath had not made payment of
A unilateral appointment of an arbitrator by one party without the other's consent is invalid under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, rendering any orders made void.
A writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable to challenge a judicial order appointing an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
An arbitral award resulting from a unilaterally appointed Arbitrator is void for lack of inherent jurisdiction, allowing the executing court to refuse enforcement.
A party does not have to name an Arbitrator unless mutual consent exists, emphasizing the validity of the Trigger Notice in seeking arbitration and the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator.
A unilateral appointment of an arbitrator by a party with an interest in the dispute is invalid, rendering the award void ab initio under the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015.
A unilateral appointment of an arbitrator by a party interested in the dispute is null and void under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as amended in 2015.
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
