IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Rinkesh Khanna S/o Jagdish Chandra Khanna – Appellant
Versus
Cholamandalam, Investment And Finance Company Limited – Respondent
ORDER :
Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.
1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-
“10.1 That, this Hon'ble may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order, direction in the nature of certiorari and quash the impugned execution proceedings bearing MJC Civil Case No.49/24 between the parties Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co.Ltd., Vs. Rinkesh Khanna pending before the Court of 1st District Judge, Manendragarh District Korea Now MCB-C.G. (Annexure P-1)
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.”
2. The facts of the present case are as under:-
(i) The petitioners purchased a Mahindra Blazo bearing registration No. C.G.-16CH-2489 through a higher purchase agreement and obtained a loan of Rs.39,20,800/-. The loan amount was to be paid in monthly installments. The monthly installment was fixed @ Rs.67,600/- per month. The agreement was executed between the parties on 27.06.2017. The petitioners could not continue payment of installments.
(ii) The respondent Company initiated an arbitration proceedings and an arbitrator was appointed by the respondent itself.
(iii) The arbitrator passed
Bharat Broadman Limited Vs. United Telecom
TRF Limited Vs. Energo Engineering Projects Limited
Perkins Eastman Architects DPC and another vs. HSCC (India) Ltd.
Bhaven Construction v. Executive Engineer, Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited and Another
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.
A unilateral appointment of an arbitrator by a party with an interest in the dispute is invalid, rendering the award void ab initio under the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015.
A unilateral appointment of an arbitrator by one party contravenes Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, rendering the arbitral award void ab initio and against public policy.
The court emphasized the necessity for impartiality in arbitration, ruling that automatic appointments of arbitrators undermined the arbitration clause, rendering the award invalid.
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.