Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SANJEEV NARULA
Reom Infrastructure and Construction Limited – Appellant
Versus
Air Force Naval Housing Board – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks arbitration appointment under ibc. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding invalidity of arbitration agreement. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court analysis on arbitration nomination rules. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. appointment of new arbitrator confirmed. (Para 11) |
| 5. conclusion allowing the petition. (Para 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral)--By way of the present petition under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as the `Act'], the Petitioner-company, through its Resolution Professional Mr. Satya Prakash Gupta appointed under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [hereinafter referred to as `IBC'], seeks declaration to the effect that Mr. Anil Kumar Kathuria, the Sole Arbitrator is de jure unable to act as an Arbitrator, and further seeks appointment of a substitute Arbitrator.
2. The Petitioner and the Respondent had entered into a Contract dated 11th April, 2011, for construction/development of its housing project at Bhubaneswar consisting 256 flats of different categories [hereinafter referred to as the `Contract']. The Contract provided for dispute reso
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of impartiality and independence of the arbitrator, as well as the eligibility criteria for arbitrators under the A&C Act, 1996.
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the proviso allowing parties to waive disqualification through ....
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 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 ....
Point of law: As per the legal position settled by the Supreme Court in catena of judgments, the High Court has the jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the said Act to nullify the appointments made b....
The unilateral appointment of an Arbitrator contravenes statutory requirements, leading to termination of the mandate if the appointment raises doubts about independence or impartiality.
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
