IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
SUMAN SHYAM
State of Goa – Appellant
Versus
U. P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. contract award, bridge collapse, arbitration initiation, award, prior proceedings. (Para 1) |
| 2. appellant alleges arbitrator bias due to prior contractor ties. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. respondent invokes waiver, estoppel; unanimous award unvitiated. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. known facts negate disclosure duty; tribunal balance neutralizes bias. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. 1996 act inapplicable to pre-commencement proceedings. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. no evidence or reasonable apprehension of actual bias. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 7. party-nominated former employees permissible in tribunals. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 8. limited judicial interference; appeal dismissed. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
JUDGMENT :
SUMAN SHYAM, J.
1.This Appeal preferred by the State of Goa, under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1996’), is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 22.02.2016, passed by the learned Principal District Judge (PDJ), North Goa, in Arbitration and Conciliation Petition No. 2 of 2012, rejecting the objection filed by the Appellant under Section 34 of the Act of
Union of India vs. Tolani Bulk Carriers Limited
Ladli Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. Punjab Police Housing Corporation Limited & Ors.
Jiwan Kumar Lohia & anr. vs. Durga Dutt Lohia & Ors.
Raipur Development Authority & Ors. vs. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors & Ors.
K. P. Poulose vs. State of Kerala
Central Organisation for Railway Electrification vs. ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV)
TRF Limited vs. Energo Engineering Projects Limited
Perkins Eastman Architects & anr. vs. HSCC (India) LTD.
Glock Asis – Pacific Limited vs. UOI
S. P. Singla Constructions Private Limited vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & anr.
Shetty’s Constructions Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Konkan Railway Construction & anr.
Thyssen Stah Lunion GMBH vs. Steel Authority of India
Arbitral proceedings pre-1996 Act governed by 1940 Act; no Section 12 disclosure duty; party-nominated arbitrator's known prior ties do not vitiate unanimous three-member award absent proven bias.
An arbitrator's appointment violating Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act without an express written waiver is invalid, rendering any adjudicated award void.
Parties consenting to arbitration and participating without objection cannot later challenge the arbitral award based on alleged unilateral appointment of the arbitrator.
Arbitrator independence is crucial; unilateral appointments violate neutrality, invalidating any waiver of ineligibility not expressly agreed post-constitution of the tribunal.
The necessity for an express written waiver to validate an arbitrator's appointment under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Arbitral Tribunal consisting of officers of State have become ineligible to become Arbitrators and to continue as Arbitrators.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.