Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIBHU BAKHRU, AMIT MAHAJAN
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Narendra Kumar Prajapat – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant's claim to enforce arbitral award. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. ineligibility of arbitrator affects award validity. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. waiver of objection requires express written agreement. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. ineligible arbitrator means award is a nullity. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. delay in appeal filing not justified. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. appeal dismissed on merits and delay. (Para 19) |
AMIT MAHAJAN VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (Oral)
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 23.11.2022, passed by the learned Commercial Court whereby the appellant’s application for enforcement of an ex- parte arbitral award dated 21.07.2021, passed by Shri C. Prasanna Venkatesh, Sole Arbitrator in favour of D.H. Finance Company, was rejected.
2. The appellant claims that it is an assignee of D.H. Finance Company and is, therefore, entitled to enforce the Arbitral Award rendered in favour of the said entity.
3. In terms of the Arbitral Award, the sum of Rs.4,66,103.3/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum was awarded in favour of the D.H. Finance Company which was a claimant before the Arbitral Tribunal. The learned Commercial Court had found that the Arbit
An arbitrator's unilateral appointment, without mutual consent, is invalid, making any resultant award unenforceable under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator without concurrence violates Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, rendering the award void ab initio.
An arbitrator is ineligible to act if any relationship affecting impartiality exists, leading to a null and void award per Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
An ineligible arbitrator appointed unilaterally violates Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, rendering the arbitral award invalid.
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the de jure ineligibility of the learned Sole Arbitrator to act as an Arbitrator in view of 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
