Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Coronation Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners' claims and proceedings background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. supreme court decisions on arbitrator disqualification. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 3. challenge to the tribunal's appointment legitimacy. (Para 13 , 15) |
| 4. interpretation of sections 12, 14 of a&c act. (Para 16 , 17 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. order for appointing a new arbitrator. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 6. final judgment and order. (Para 31 , 32) |
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "A&C Act, 1996") has been filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking termination of the mandate of the Sole Arbitrator appointed by the respondent.
2. It is submitted in the petition that the petitioners purchased the machinery/equipment, namely, LIUGONG CLC 414 from the respondent on 17th April, 2017 vide Loan-cum-Hypothecation-cum-Guarantee Agreement (hereinafter referred to as "Loan Agreement") bearing Loan No.0000007000419315 and the same was to be paid in 36 equal monthly installments of Rs.1,96,930/- commencing from 17th April, 2017 till 03rd February, 2020. The complete installments were made by the petitio
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 ....
The unilateral appointment of an Arbitrator contravenes statutory requirements, leading to termination of the mandate if the appointment raises doubts about independence or impartiality.
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 unilateral appointment of an arbitrator by one party without consent of the other violates the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, resulting in automatic termination of the arbitrator's mandate.
Unilateral appointment of an Arbitrator without consent violates procedural fairness under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, leading to the termination of the mandate.
Unilateral appointment of a sole arbitrator is impermissible and illegal, leading to the automatic termination of the arbitrator's mandate under Section 14(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation A....
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 a party is impermissible, and the ineligibility of the Arbitrator under Section 12(5) of the A&C Act is a valid ground for challenging the appointment.
Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator by a party with vested interests breaches principles of fairness and impartiality, rendering such appointment invalid under arbitration laws.
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.
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
