Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr. Justice N. Sathish Kumar, J
D. Aruldoss – Appellant
Versus
Authorised Signatory, M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. – Respondent
ORDER :
This civil revision petition is at the instance of one of the judgement- debtors seeking to strike off the Execution Petition in E.P.No.86 of 2022, which was filed by the 1st respondent and is pending on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Tindivanam, to get executed the Award dated 17.03.2021 passed by the learned arbitrator in C.P.No.YKR/SCUF/179/2020.
2. The revision petitioner is the 1st respondent and the respondents 2 and 3 are the respondents 2 and 3 in the arbitral award and the 1st respondent is the claimant in the arbitral proceedings, which arose, out of a dispute that arose over a loan transaction. The 1st respondent, a financial institution, referred the matter to the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute arose between the revision petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 and themselves. The sole arbitrator passed an award on 17.03.2021 whereby the respondents in the arbitral proceedings were directed to pay to the claimant a sum of Rs.21,70,626/- together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from 07.12.2020 till date of realisation of the amount in full and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of arbitration proceedings. On the ba
An arbitral award remains executable unless challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, even if the arbitrator was unilaterally appointed.
Executing courts cannot annul arbitral awards based on unilateral appointment of arbitrators if the parties do not challenge it; such awards remain valid until set aside as per legal procedure.
The executing court cannot dismiss an execution petition based on unilateral appointment of an arbitrator without a challenge from a party, and an arbitral award is enforceable unless set aside under....
The unilateral appointment of an arbitrator does not render an arbitral award a nullity unless formally challenged; such challenges are to be made under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation....
An arbitral award resulting from a unilaterally appointed Arbitrator is void for lack of inherent jurisdiction, allowing the executing court to refuse enforcement.
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.
An award obtained through a unilaterally appointed arbitrator lacks enforcement validity; mutual consent in appointment is essential.
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
