Back
VIBHU BAKHRU
PCL Suncon – Appellant
Versus
National Highway Authority of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner – a Joint Venture constituted by Progressive Construction Limited and SUNCON Construction Berhard, Malaysia – has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 20.04.2020 passed by the two arbitrators terminating the arbitral proceedings under Section 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter ‘the A&C Act’).
2. The present application is filed under Section 14(1)(a) read with Section 15 of the A&C Act. The petitioner further prays for substitution of the Arbitrator by an independent arbitrator appointed by this Court.
3. The arbitral proceedings were terminated because the arbitrator nominated by the petitioner had resigned and the petitioner had not taken steps to nominate another arbitrator in his place. Consequently, the arbitral proceedings could not proceed and the remaining two arbitrators constituting the Arbitral Tribunal concluded that it was impossible to continue the proceedings and, accordingly, terminated the same. The petitioner claims that there was a communication gap and the petitioner was not aware that the arbitrator appointed by it had resigned. The Arbitral Tribunal had not issued any notice
An order terminating arbitral proceedings under Section 32(2)(c) of the A&C Act is not an award and can be challenged under Section 14(2) of the A&C Act. Delay in appointing an arbitrator may warrant....
An order terminating the arbitral proceedings under Section 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is not equivalent to an arbitral award and cannot be challenged under Section 34 of....
The unilateral appointment of an Arbitrator is invalid, and parties retain the right to seek an independent substitute Arbitrator for unresolved counter-claims following termination of arbitral proce....
An order rejecting an amendment to a statement of claim is not an interim award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, as it does not determine substantive issues or rights in the arbitration.
An order under Section 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration Act does not constitute an arbitral award and is not subject to challenge under Section 34.
The court affirmed that termination of arbitral proceedings does not permit the appointment of a substitute arbitrator without reviving prior termination, emphasizing procedural adherence in arbitrat....
The challenge for the appointment of Arbitrator under Section 13 of the Act can only be made along with the final award under Section 34.
No power has been invested by Parliament in the Court to remand the matter to the Arbitral Tribunal except to adjourn the proceedings for the limited purpose mentioned in sub-section (4) of Section 3....
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
