Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
VIBHU BAKHRU, C.M.JOSHI
General Insurance Employees' Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Ramadas Shettigar, S/o. Anand Shettigar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellate jurisdiction under the a&c act. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. eligibility criteria for arbitrators. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. ruling on the ineligibility of the arbitrator. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT :
VIBHU BAKHRU, C.J.
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 37 (1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [the A&C Act] impugning an order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Udupi [Commercial Court] in A.P.No.10/2024 [impugned order], 'Sri Ramdas Shettigar v. The General Insurance Employees' Co-operative Credit Society Ltd . and others.
2. The respondent filed the aforementioned petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act impugning an Arbitral Award dated 10.04.2024 rendered by an Arbitral Tribunal comprising of a sole arbitrator - Shri S. Gururaj Aithal [Arbitral Tribunal]. The learned Commercial Court found that the sole arbitrator is ineligible to act as an arbitrator in terms of Section 12 (5) of the A&C Act read with Seventh Schedule of the A&C Act. Concededly, the sole arbitrator was at the material time acting as a counsel for the appellant – Society in a suit bearing O.S
An arbitrator is ineligible to act if any relationship affecting impartiality exists, leading to a null and void award per Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
The ineligibility of an arbitrator under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act invalidates the arbitral award, which can be challenged at any stage.
An arbitrator's unilateral appointment, without mutual consent, is invalid, making any resultant award unenforceable under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator without concurrence violates Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, rendering the award void ab initio.
Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is void if it violates Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act; mere participation does not imply waiver without express written consent post-disputes.
The court held that failure to disclose prior relationships with a party renders an arbitrator ineligible, thus invalidating the arbitral award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
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
