Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
VIBHU BAKHRU
Simmi Sethi – Appellant
Versus
Fullerton India Credit Co. Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. validity of arbitrator's appointment and award (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. procedural issues regarding notice and hearings (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. controversy over procedural notices (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. legal precedent on unilateral appointment of arbitrators (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. conclusion on invalid arbitral award (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J. (Oral)--The petitioners have filed the present petition impugning an Arbitral Award dated 23.12.2019 (hereafter `the impugned award') rendered by an Arbitral Tribunal constituted of a Sole Arbitrator. The petitioners contend that the impugned award is void ab initio as the learned Arbitrator was ineligible to act as an Arbitrator. The learned Sole Arbitrator was appointed unilaterally by the respondent without concurrence or prior information to the petitioners.
2. The respondent company is a Non-Banking Financial Company engaged in the business of providing loans and financial facilities. During the course of its business, the respondent had advanced certain loans to Upper India Trading Company Private Limited [the petitioner in OMP(COMM) 336/2021]. The parties had thereafter, entered into a
Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator without concurrence violates Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, rendering the award void ab initio.
An ineligible arbitrator appointed unilaterally violates Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, rendering the arbitral award invalid.
Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator without consent is impermissible, and the court has jurisdiction to interfere when a challenge is raised on the ground of ineligibility of an arbitrator under ....
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.
An arbitrator's unilateral appointment, without mutual consent, is invalid, making any resultant award unenforceable under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator without proper notice and in violation of statutory provisions renders the resulting award unsustainable and against the public policy of India.
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
