Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.ANAND VENKATESH
Thomas Varghese, S/o. Varghese George – Appellant
Versus
Sundaram Finance Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the loan and arbitration process (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12) |
| 2. petitioner’s arguments regarding the validity of the award (Para 13 , 14 , 19 , 20) |
| 3. court’s considerations on the appointment of the sole arbitrator (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 21 , 24 , 25 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 33 , 39) |
| 4. legitimacy and credibility of arbitral institutions (Para 22 , 27 , 32 , 35 , 36 , 38) |
| 5. final dismissal of the petition with costs (Para 40) |
ORDER :
1. The petitioner assails the award passed by the Sole Arbitrator dated 13.04.2023 by filing the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
3.On receipt of the above notice, the petitioner surrendered the hypothecated vehicle to the respondent on 11.11.2021.
5.The outstanding amount was not repaid back and hence the trigger notice under Section 21 of the Act was issued by the respondent on 05.06.2021 for appointment of an Arbitrator through Madras Chamber of Commerce and Industries [MCCI].
7.The respondent filed a claim statement on 26.8.2022 by making a claim of a sum of Rs.15,76,575.52 towards outstanding dues with inte
The appointment of the Sole Arbitrator by the MCCI was valid and did not contravene the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, even if one party did not participate in the arbitration proceedings.
An arbitration award cannot be invalidated for unilateral appointment of arbitrators if the parties had the opportunity to nominate their respective arbitrators through an independent institute, main....
Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator by a party with vested interests breaches principles of fairness and impartiality, rendering such appointment invalid under arbitration laws.
A unilateral appointment of an arbitrator by one party contravenes Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, rendering the arbitral award void ab initio and against public policy.
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.
Unilateral appointment of an Arbitrator without consent violates procedural fairness under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, leading to the termination of the mandate.
The court emphasized the necessity for impartiality in arbitration, ruling that automatic appointments of arbitrators undermined the arbitration clause, rendering the award invalid.
Where an Arbitrator had already been appointed and intimation thereof had been conveyed to the other party, a separate application for appointment of an Arbitrator is not maintainable. Once the power....
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
