Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.ANAND VENKATESH
RPN Engineers Chennai Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
General Manager, Integral Coach Factory – Respondent
ORDER :
N. Anand Venkatesh, J.
This petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [for brevity ‘the Act’] challenging the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal dated 26.02.2022.
2. The petitioner participated in the tender process and was awarded the contract by respondents vide Letter of Acceptance dated 17.11.2017. The agreement was executed on 08.02.2018 and as per the agreement, the petitioner was required to complete the work within a period of nine months from the date of Letter of Acceptance. The contract period was extended from time to time. The further case of the petitioner is that they were required to execute additional works, which was not initially part of the scope of work made in the agreement and thereby, it increased the magnitude of the work and the value of the contractual work.
3. It is the further case of petitioner that the petitioner completed the entire work assigned as per the terms of the Agreement on 13.03.2021 to the tune of Rs.4,14,54,212/- as against the agreement value of Rs.3,21,24,118/-.
4. The petitioner alleges that outstanding payments were not paid in spite of repeated requests and demands and the respondent
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.
Arbitrator independence is crucial; unilateral appointments violate neutrality, invalidating any waiver of ineligibility not expressly agreed post-constitution of the tribunal.
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.
The court emphasized the necessity for impartiality in arbitration, ruling that automatic appointments of arbitrators undermined the arbitration clause, rendering the award invalid.
A party cannot challenge an arbitration award if it has unilaterally appointed the arbitrator, as such appointments violate principles of impartiality, making the award unenforceable.
A unilateral appointment of an arbitrator from an ineligible party is void ab initio without an express written waiver of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which cannot be implie....
Point of law: As per the legal position settled by the Supreme Court in catena of judgments, the High Court has the jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the said Act to nullify the appointments made b....
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.
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
