Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
VIBHU BAKHRU
Sacheerome Advanced Technologies – Appellant
Versus
NEC Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (NECI) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background regarding arbitration initiation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioner's concerns over the arbitrator's bias and delays. (Para 5 , 6 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. arbitrator's disclosure and lack of bias. (Para 7 , 8 , 12) |
| 4. procedural requirements for challenging arbitrator's appointment. (Para 13 , 14 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. arbitrator's due dispatch during proceedings. (Para 18 , 26) |
| 6. conclusion - petition dismissed with costs. (Para 27 , 28) |
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 14 (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter `the A&C Act'), inter alia, praying that the mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator be terminated.
2. The disputes between the parties have arisen in the context of an agreement dated 11.06.2019 (the Agreement). On 08.10.2020, the petitioner had issued a notice under Section 21 of the A&C Act, invoking the Arbitration Agreement and called upon the respondent to concur on appointment of an arbitrator. The respondent rejected the said request. Consequently, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 11 of the A&C Act [being ARB. P. 702/2020] seeking appointment of an
Pre-award challenges to an arbitrator's mandate based on perceived bias are impermissible, and such concerns must be raised post-award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Arbitration - Time limit for arbitral award - A petition under Section 29A of Act cannot be permitted to be used by one of parties to seek substitution of an arbitrator merely on basis of its unsubst....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grounds for termination of an arbitrator's mandate must satisfy the circumstances laid down under the Act and the precedents set by the Ho....
The court established that an arbitrator appointed by an ineligible individual cannot act, and waivers of objections regarding ineligibility must be expressed in writing, not inferred by conduct.
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.
Unilateral appointment of an Arbitrator without consent violates procedural fairness under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, leading to the termination of the mandate.
The court held that failure to disclose prior relationships with a party renders an arbitrator ineligible, thus invalidating the arbitral award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
The appointment of an arbitrator must comply with Section 12(5) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, ensuring independence and impartiality, regardless of when the arbitration proceedings were init....
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
