Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
RAJIV SHAKDHER, TARA VITASTA GANJU
Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Narender Singh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal's basis and background. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. compliance with notice provisions. (Para 2 , 5 , 10) |
| 3. rationale for setting aside the award. (Para 4 , 18) |
| 4. mandatory disclosures for impartial arbitrator. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT
[Physical Court Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
Tara Vitasta Ganju, J.
FAO (COMM) 179/2021 & CM APPL. 39706/2021 [Application for Condonation of Delay]
1. The present Appeal has been filed under the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter "the Act") read with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of the High Courts Act, 2015 against the judgment of the learned District Judge dated 17.12.2020 (hereinafter "the Impugned Judgment"). By the Impugned Judgment, the learned District Judge has allowed the Petition under Section 34 of the Act and set aside the Arbitral Award dated 16.07.2019 on the following two grounds:
(i) There is non-compliance of Section 21 of the Act;
(ii) The Arbitrator did not make the requisite disclosure as is required under Section 12 of the Act.
1.1. At the outset, it is noticed that the Appeal is
The mandatory notice under Section 21 for arbitration commencement must be received, not just sent, and failure to disclose connections violates Section 12, compromising arbitration impartiality.
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 appeals were dismissed due to lack of evidence demonstrating the arbitrator's bias, emphasizing that mere allegations of disclosure failures do not invalidate ex-parte awards without clear proof ....
Participation in arbitration without objection constitutes a waiver of the right to challenge the appointment of the arbitrator, as per Sections 4 and 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
The Court cannot intervene in arbitration proceedings unless a de jure inability of the arbitrator is established, as per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court upheld the validity of the waiver of objections regarding arbitrator eligibility and affirmed that it does not review arbitral awards on merits, focusing only on public policy and patent il....
The main legal point established is that an Arbitrator appointed under the M.S.M.E.D. Act is required to disclose his independence and impartiality as per Section 12(1)(2) read with Schedule 6th of t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, including the disclosure requirements, apply to arbitration proceedings under sp....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the notice under Section 21 of the A&C Act must be received for the arbitration to commence, claims must be initiated within the limitation pe....
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
