Back
SACHIN DATTA
Hua Seng Chew (Chairman of Jai Radha Raman Education Society) – Appellant
Versus
Jai Radha Raman Education Society (Through its Chairman and President) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Sachin Datta, J.) :—
IA No. 7233/2023 (for restoration) in ARB. A. (COMM.) 53/2022
IA No. 7132/2023 (for restoration) in ARB. A. (COMM.) 54/2022
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. These are applications seeking restoration of the arbitration appeals which were disposed of vide order dated 30.01.2023. The appeals were directed against the order dated 20.07.2022, passed by the learned Arbitrator on an application filed, inter-alia, under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It was sought therein that the applicant therein, being the President of Jai Radha Raman Education Society (hereinafter referred to as the “respondent-society”), be allowed to represent the said society in the ongoing arbitration proceedings.
2. It is the common case of the parties that there has been a rift between the Chairman and President of the respondent-society since they represent two rival sections of the society. The President of the society i.e. Mr. Shantanu Prakash (hereinafter referred to as the “President”) is stated to belong to the “Educomp group” whereas the Chairman of the society i.e the appellant in ARB. A. (COMM.) 53/2022 (hereinafter referred to as the “Chairman”) represents th
The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to conclusively resolve the issue of representation of the respondent-society before allowing the arbitral proceedings to continue, and....
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.
Revocation of an arbitrator’s authority requires demonstrating reasonable apprehension of bias, which must be substantiated.
The court may appoint an alternative arbitrator if the designated arbitrator is biased, ensuring fair arbitration under the Indian Arbitration Act.
The court dismissed the petition, stating that the Tribunal had the authority to grant interim measures and that the petitioners had failed to demonstrate that the Section 17 remedy was inefficacious....
Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator by a party with vested interests breaches principles of fairness and impartiality, rendering such appointment invalid under arbitration laws.
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
