Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI, J
M.I. MOHAMMED – Appellant
Versus
M/s. HLL LIFE CARE LTD. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
This original petition is filed against Ext P12 order dated 29.11.2023 in A.O.P. No.127/2021, on the files of the Principal Sub Court, Ernakulam. The petitioner herein is the respondent in the Arbitration proceedings.
2. The petitioner and respondents entered into a contract on agreement dated 31/07/2013, for the construction of a Multidisciplinary Research Laboratory and Animal House at Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram, valued at Rs. 23,90,36,760/-. The contract stipulated an 18-month completion period, ending on 02/06/2015. However, the project was not completed until 15/05/2018. The petitioner has initiated arbitration proceedings, claiming that the respondents' delays were the sole cause of the extended project timeline.
3. With the contract's expiry on 02/06/2015, the contractual rates became unenforceable. Subsequently, on 31/12/2015, the petitioner formally notified the respondents, demanding for payment at prevailing market rates for the work extended beyond the contract period, due to the respondents' delays. The respondents, while compelling the petitioner to complete the project, contested the petitioner's entitlement to market rates. The respondents' default
The High Court cannot intervene under Article 227 when an alternative statutory remedy exists, specifically under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
A unilateral appointment of an arbitrator by a party with an interest in the dispute is invalid, rendering the award void ab initio under the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015.
A party to arbitration proceedings has a remedy to challenge the award passed in such proceedings under Section 34 of the 1996 Act.
The court held that unilateral appointment of arbitrators by one party without consent is invalid, leading to lack of jurisdiction for the Arbitral Tribunal and grounds to set aside the award.
(1) Arbitration Act is a code in itself. Arbitration Act itself gives various procedures and Fora to challenge appointment of Arbitrator.(2) A legislative enactment cannot curtail a Constitutional ri....
Parties can waive objections to an arbitrator's eligibility by consenting to their appointment and participating in proceedings, as per Sections 12(5) and 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
A unilateral appointment of an arbitrator by a party interested in the dispute is null and void under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as amended in 2015.
Parties can waive objections to an arbitrator's ineligibility by express agreement after disputes arise, as per Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Unilateral appointment of an Arbitrator by one party cannot be sustained, and any award or order purporting to cast a liability on the objecting party would be non-est.
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
