Back
IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
ARUN R.PEDNEKER, VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV
State of Maharashtra, Through Public Works Department, Through its Executive Engineer – Appellant
Versus
Morya Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Beed Through Its Director, Bhaskar Tukaram Waghmare – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bot road contract terminated prematurely for poor maintenance. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arbitration invoked after failed notices; section 11 filed. (Para 6 , 21) |
| 3. arbitral proceedings advanced with late jurisdictional objections. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. challenges to arbitrator appointment and waiver raised. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. high court recorded consent, did not appoint arbitrator. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. belated constitution objection deemed waived by participation. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 7. sections 4,10,16 permit waiver of tribunal composition objections. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 8. party's own procedural lapses cannot invalidate arbitration. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47) |
| 9. arbitrator disqualification alleged under schedules v, vii. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 10. 2015 amendments inapplicable to pre-october 2015 proceedings. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58) |
| 11. arbitral award upheld; appeal and stay dismissed. (Para 59 , 60 , 61) |
JUDGMENT :
ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
1. By the present Commercial Arbitration Appeal filed under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, read with Sect
Appointment of arbitrator by designation is permissible. Arbitration clauses in government contracts providing that an employee of the department will be the sole arbitrator are neither void nor unen....
Point of law: As per the legal position settled by the Supreme Court in catena of judgments, the High Court has the jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the said Act to nullify the appointments made b....
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.
The appointment of a sole arbitrator deviated from the statutory requirements and terms of the arbitration agreement, making proceedings invalid under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the competency of the arbitrator and the proper notice in the arbitration proceedings are crucial for the validity of the arbitration award.
Unilateral appointment of an Arbitrator without consent violates procedural fairness under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, leading to the termination of the mandate.
Arbitrators must be impartial and capable of performing their duties; prolonged inaction in arbitration proceedings justifies termination of their mandate.
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
