Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN
Priyanka Communications India Pvt – Appellant
Versus
Tata Capital Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This is a Petition filed invoking Sections 12, 13 and 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”), requesting this Court to set aside an order dated November 11, 2024, by which, the Learned Sole Arbitrator, (appointed by an order of this Court under Section 11 of the Act on October15, 2024) has not recused himself at the request of the Petitioner.
2. The material on record brought to bear by the Petitioner, essentially covers the disclosure made by the Learned Sole Arbitrator on November 11, 2024, setting out the nature of relationships between the Learned Sole Arbitrator with affiliates of the Respondent. These disclosures are essentially about a few matters where the Learned Sole Arbitrator had represented some affiliates of the Respondent. The Petitioner has also brought to bear a range of other past representations, which would lead to the factual matrix that would enable the Petitioner to invoke the Fifth Schedule of the Act i.e. to raise justifiable doubts as to independence and impartiality of the arbitrator. The Petitioner filed an application under Section 13 of the Act requesting the Learned Sole Arbitrator to recuse from the proceedings. The
Past representations of an arbitrator do not constitute current representation, thus not attracting disqualification under the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
The Court cannot intervene in arbitration proceedings unless a de jure inability of the arbitrator is established, as per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court ruled that mere allegations of bias do not establish a de jure inability of the arbitrator to perform his functions, thus denying the petition to challenge the arbitrator's appointment.
Previous judicial involvement does not disqualify an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, as long as independence and impartiality are maintained.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grounds for termination of an arbitrator's mandate must satisfy the circumstances laid down under the Act and the precedents set by the Ho....
The unilateral appointment of an arbitrator by one party, violating Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, renders the arbitrator ineligible, necessitating the appointment of a ....
Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator by a party with an interest in disputes is invalid and conflicts with the impartiality requirement in arbitration law.
Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not provide for the substitution or termination of the mandate of an arbitrator, and cannot be invoked to substitute an arbitrator appoin....
The unilateral appointment of an arbitrator without engaging the other party and the applicability of statutory provisions and legal precedents in determining the legitimacy of the appointment.
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
