Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Coronation Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition filed under a&c act, 1996. (Para 1) |
| 2. details of machinery purchase and arbitration initiation. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. objection to arbitrator's unilateral appointment. (Para 4 , 12) |
| 4. proceedings delayed, notice about hearing received. (Para 5 , 7 , 16) |
| 5. petitioners maintaining payment despite covid-19. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 6. status of loan repayment during pandemic. (Para 10 , 11 , 17) |
| 7. cited precedents on arbitrator disqualification. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 8. request to terminate arbitrator's mandate. (Para 15) |
| 9. argument on illegal appointment of arbitrator. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 10. explanation of section 14 of a&c act, 1996. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 24) |
| 11. arbitrator ineligibility and court's jurisdiction. (Para 23 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 12. appointment of substitute arbitrator discussed. (Para 28 , 29) |
| 13. new arbitrator appointed and disclosure requirement. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 14. conclusion and order for petition allowed. (Para 35 , 36) |
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 appointe
Unilateral appointment of an Arbitrator without consent violates procedural fairness under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, leading to the termination of the mandate.
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.
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 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 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.
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 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.
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.
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
