V. KAMESWAR RAO
Consortium of Autometers Alliance Ltd. & Canny Elevators Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Chief Electrical Engineer/Planning, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’, for short) with the following prayers:
a. Declare that Clause 17.9 of the GCC forming part of the said Contract, inasmuch as it provides for appointment of all three arbitrators from a panel of arbitrators proposed by the Respondent, is void and unenforceable;
b. Take the necessary measure and secure the constitution of an independent and impartial Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate upon the claims of the Petitioner including inter alia by taking the following measures:
I. (a) Recognise the appointment of Justice M.M.S. Bedi (Retd,) as the nominee arbitrator on behalf of the Petitioner, (b) declare that the Respondent has forfeited all its rights to participate in the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal, and consequently (c) appoint an arbitrator on behalf of the Respondent, which arbitrator along with Justice M.M.S. Bedi (Retd), shall mutually appoint the third (presiding) arbitrator;
II. In the alternative to (i
Voestalpine Schienen GMBH v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited
The court emphasized the importance of a broad-based panel of arbitrators, providing parties with a wider choice for nominating their arbitrator.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a broad-based panel of arbitrators and the need for an independent and impartial arbitral tribunal, as mandated by previous jud....
The court reinforced that impartiality and independence of arbitrators is essential, disqualifying those with vested interests under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
An employee of the respondent or even a retired employee would be ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator. The panel of arbitrators should be broad-based and should include persons with diverse b....
The appointment procedure prescribed in clause 3.37 of the RFP was found to be restrictive and not broad-based, impinging upon the validity of the appointment procedure. The 'counter balancing' as co....
The court determined an arbitrator's jurisdiction depends on claims being notified by the General Manager; failure to do so limits arbitration eligibility.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of neutrality and impartiality of the Arbitrator in the appointment process, as well as the need for a broad-based panel of arbitrat....
The main legal point established is that the appointment procedure for arbitrators must be broad-based and meet the requirement of counterbalancing as per the arbitration agreement.
Arbitration - Merely because the panel of arbitrators are the retired employees who have worked in the Railways, it does not make them ineligible to act as the arbitrators.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a truly broadbased panel of arbitrators and the achievement of genuine counterbalancing of power in the appointment procedure f....
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.