SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Caparo Financial Solutions Limited - Appellant
Versus
Jem and Associates - Respondent
O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 1 of 2021
Decided On : 15-02-2021




Neutrality of the arbitrator is essential; a substitute arbitrator can be appointed by mutual consent to maintain fairness in arbitration proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 12(5) - Appointment of a substitute arbitrator - Objection raised by respondent concerning the initial arbitrator's neutrality - Consent given for the appointment of the former arbitrator as substitute - Proceedings to continue from the stage of recusal - Mandate of arbitrator commences afresh. (Paras 1-6)

(B) Recusal of arbitrator - Grounds for recusal hinge on principles of neutrality and impartiality - Agreement of both parties to proceed with the substitute arbitrator reinforces the principle of mutual consent in arbitration. (Paras 3, 4)

Facts of the case:
The case revolved around an objection raised against the initial arbitrator's appointment due to concerns about neutrality, leading to the appointment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K. Modi as a substitute arbitrator by the High Court, with both parties consenting to this decision.

Findings of Court:
The petition was disposed of, confirming the appointment of the substitute arbitrator who would continue the proceedings from the point of recusal, restarting the mandate.

Issues: The core issue addressed was the objection to the arbitrator's neutrality and the necessity for appointing a substitute arbitrator to ensure the fair progression of the arbitration.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reinforced that the principles of neutrality are paramount in arbitration, and the consent from both parties to appoint the substitute arbitrator ensures procedural fairness and continuity of proceedings.

Result: Petition disposed of.

Table of Content
1. grounds for objection to arbitrator. (Para 1 , 2)
2. parties consent to substitute arbitrator. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's appointment of substitute arbitrator. (Para 5 , 6)
4. petition disposed with directions. (Para 7 , 8)

ORDER (Oral)

(Video-Conferencing)

1. Consequent to an objection having been raised by the respondent, regarding the appointment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K. Modi, a retired Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, as the arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent, premised on Section 12(5) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1996 Act") read with the Seventh Schedule thereto and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1517: the learned arbitrator recused from the proceedings.

2. This provoked the petitioner to file the present petition before this Court, seeking appointment of a substitute arbitrator.

3. Mr. Ram, learned Counsel for the respondent has, on instructions, submitted that his client has no objection to the appointment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. K. Modi as the substitute arbitrator by this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 12(5) of the 1996 Act, and that the objection voiced before the learned arbitrator was on a matter of principle.

4. Learned Counsel for the parties also agree, ad idem, that the learned arbitrator could continue the proceedings from the point where the proceedings stood discontinued at the stage of his recusal.

5. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of by appointing Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K. Modi (retired), who was earlier conducting the arbitral proceedings between the parties, as the substitute arbitrator under Section 12(5) of the 1996 Act.

6. The learned arbitrator would be entitled to continue the arbitral proceedings from the point where they stood at the time of his recusal. As this is a substitute appointment, under Section 15(2) read with Section 12(5) of the 1996 Act, the mandate of the learned arbitrator would commence afresh from today.

7. Both sides submit that the learned arbitrator has requested them to appear before him on 15th March, 2021. They may do so accordingly.

8. With the above observations, this petition stands disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top