Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SANJEEV NARULA
Iworld Business Solutions Private Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition seeks termination of arbitral tribunal's mandate (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments against respondent's arbitration process (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. court's observation on previous rulings and judicial discipline (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. court affirms decision in core and rejects termination of tribunal (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. conclusion: petition dismissed (Para 18 , 19) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral)--The present petition under Section 14 read with Section 12 (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as the `Act'] seeks a declaration that the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal appointed by the Respondent be terminated and a substitute Arbitrator be appointed in accordance with provisions of the Act.
2. The dispute between the parties arises out of a Licence Agreement dated 07th June, 2016 whereby the commercial property situated at Janpath Metro Station (bearing space ID-Janpath_l) was licenced by the Respondent to the Petitioner. The arbitration agreement is contained in Article 8 of the said Agreement, which reads as follows:
"ARTICLE-8: DISPUTE RESOLUTION
8.1 Arbitration: All disputes relating
The court ruled that the appointment of arbitrators from the respondent's panel was valid, maintaining that established legal precedent surrounding impartiality does not support the petitioner's clai....
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....
Disqualified arbitrators cannot appoint successors; unilateral requests do not waive statutory disqualifications under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the procedure for appointment of Arbitral Tribunal as prescribed in the General Conditions of Contract was void and contrary to the scheme of ....
The court affirmed that the claimant must secure the necessary Airport Entry Permits and upheld the arbitration award, ruling no breach by the respondent; consent regarding the arbitrator's appointme....
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
