Atelier Automobiles Private Limited vs Religare Finvest Limited

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

DELHI HIGH COURT
MINI PUSHKARNA
Atelier Automobiles Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Religare Finvest Limited – Respondent

Table of Content
1. petition for termination of arbitrator's mandate. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. issue of unilateral appointment without consent. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. contentions by both parties regarding arbitrator's authority. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. assessing the legality of the unilateral appointment. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
5. independence and impartiality must be ensured in arbitrations. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
6. conclusion: new arbitrator appointed; mandate terminated. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)

JUDGMENT

Mini Pushkarna, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 14 and 15 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein after called "the Act" ) seeking termination of the mandate of the sole arbitrator, unilaterally appointed by the respondent, with further prayer for substitution of the sole arbitrator appointed by the respondent, by an impartial and independent arbitrator.

2. Petitioner no. 1 is engaged in the business of dealership of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. at Patiala and Saharanpur, and petitioner nos. 2 to 5 are the directors of petitioner no. 1. Respondent is a non- banking financial company.

3. A loan agreement was executed b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

DELHI HIGH COURTMINI PUSHKARNAAtelier Automobiles Private Limited – AppellantVersusReligare Finvest Limited – Respondent

DELHI HIGH COURT
MINI PUSHKARNA
Atelier Automobiles Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Religare Finvest Limited – Respondent