Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
C.HARI SHANKAR
M.K. Jain – Appellant
Versus
Angle Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the arbitrator's appointment. (Para 1) |
| 2. details of the disputed mou. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. request for arbitration by the respondent. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. arbitrator's response and interim handling. (Para 8 , 10) |
| 5. arguments regarding unilateral appointment. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 6. court's reasoning against the appointment. (Para 13 , 14 , 18 , 22) |
| 7. clarification on legal provisions. (Para 15 , 16 , 19 , 21) |
| 8. final order to appoint a new arbitrator. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 29) |
(Video-Conferencing)
1. By this petition under Section 14 (1)(a) read with section 14(2) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1996 Act"), the petitioners question the legitimacy of the appointment of the arbitrator (who happens to be a learned retired Judge of this Court), by the respondent, to arbitrate on the disputes between the petitioners and the respondent. Consequently, the petition prays for a declaration that the mandate of the learned arbitrator stands terminated under section 14(1)(a) of the 1996 Act, as the learned arbitrator has been rendered de jure incapable of acting in the said capacity.
2. The issue in controversy
The unilateral appointment of an arbitrator without engaging the other party and the applicability of statutory provisions and legal precedents in determining the legitimacy of the appointment.
Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is contrary to Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, necessitating mutual agreement for such appointment.
Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator by one party is impermissible, and ineligibility to appoint an arbitrator is established based on relevant legal provisions and precedents.
The de jure disqualification of an Arbitrator under A&C Act, 1996, Section 14(1) leads to the termination of the mandate and the appointment of a substitute Arbitrator.
Strict enforcement of arbitration agreement and the law does not permit either party to act as an arbitrator or appoint the arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes.
The unilateral appointment of an arbitrator by one party, violating Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, renders the arbitrator ineligible, necessitating the appointment of a ....
Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator by a party with an interest in disputes is invalid and conflicts with the impartiality requirement in arbitration law.
The unilateral appointment of a Sole Arbitrator by a party in conflict with statutory provisions and judicial judgments is impermissible. The waiver of the right to object and the criteria for impart....
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
