Back
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN, J
FLFL TRAVEL RETAIL LUCKNOW PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ANR. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PRATEEK JALAN, J.
1. By way of this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [“the Act”], the petitioner assails an award dated 11.08.2022 rendered by a learned sole arbitrator adjudicating disputes between the parties under a Concession Agreement dated 23.03.2018 [“the Agreement”].
A. Background facts:
2. The Agreement concerned a concession to develop, market, set up, operate, maintain, and manage retail outlets at various Category A and Category B airports, including the Chaudhary Charan Singh Airport at Lucknow [“Lucknow Airport”]. It was entered into pursuant to a request for proposal issued by the respondent No. 1.
3. Disputes arose between the parties under the Agreement, and the petitioner claimed the following reliefs:
“a. That the Claimant be awarded a rebate/refund of the Concession Fee of Rs. 2,32,83,448.44 (Rupees Two Crore Thirty Two Lakh Eighty Three Thousand Four Hundred and Forty Eight and Forty Four Paise) towards the delay by the Respondent in obtaining the security clearance of the Locations, as per the particulars of claim set out in Exhibit C - 32 hereto;
b. That the Claimant be awarded a rebate/refund of the Concession Fee o
The failure of an arbitrator to disclose a subsequent appointment and the non-supply of documents to a party violate the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, undermining the integrity of the arbitration....
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....
Point of law: Arbitration -in the absence of an express agreement between the petitioner and the respondent subsequent to arising of disputes whereby the parties expressly agreed to waive the applica....
The court ruled that mere allegations of bias do not establish a de jure inability of the arbitrator to perform his functions, thus denying the petition to challenge the arbitrator's appointment.
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.
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 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....
Parties consenting to arbitration and participating without objection cannot later challenge the arbitral award based on alleged unilateral appointment of the arbitrator.
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
