Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ABHAY AHUJA
Aqua Labour Asia Pacific Limited – Appellant
Versus
Arihant Ship Breaters – Respondent
ORDER :
ABHAY AHUJA, J.
1. This Execution Application has been filed by the Applicant under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the “CPC”) seeking execution of award dated 21st January, 2021 and a direction to the Respondent to pay the Applicant-Award Holder a principal amount of USD 709,776.3 (United States Dollars Seven Hundred and Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy-Six only) alongwith costs of USD 50,000/- (United States Dollars Fifty Thousand Only) and INR 11,53,000/- (Indian Rupees Eleven Lakhs Fifty-Three Thousand only) in addition to interest calculated thereupon. Although the Respondent has filed Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the “said Act”) seeking to challenge and set aside the award on the grounds of patent illegality and public policy, the same is pending and there is no stay on the operation, implementation and execution of the award although again an Interim Application seeking a stay is also pending. Therefore and also since no payment of the outstanding amount under the Award was made by the Respondent, the Applicant filed the Commercial Execution Application dated 21st August, 2023 bearing Commercial Executi
An arbitrator's appointment by consent recorded in court meets legal requirements, and jurisdictional challenges based on alleged lack of procedure cannot invalidate prior agreements.
Procedural objections regarding the appointment of arbitrators in ICA do not invalidate an arbitral award unless linked to non-derogable provisions or demonstrated prejudice.
Participation in arbitration without objection constitutes a waiver of the right to challenge the appointment of the arbitrator, as per Sections 4 and 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Court clarified that initial appointment of an Arbitrator must derive authority from the Arbitration Act, rejecting jurisdiction under Section 8 and confirming that participation does not waive juris....
An arbitral award resulting from a unilaterally appointed Arbitrator is void for lack of inherent jurisdiction, allowing the executing court to refuse enforcement.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of parties' consent in appointing arbitrators and the consequences of their conduct in adhering to the arbitration agreement.
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
