Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J
Shibbinraj P.R – Appellant
Versus
M/s.Sundaram Home Finance Ltd., formerly known as Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition under section 34 of the arbitration act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. defects in vakalath must be rectified for representation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. arbitrator's unilateral appointment violates legal principles. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. court decision to set aside arbitrator's award. (Para 10 , 11) |
ORDER
This petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [for brevity 'the Act'], challenging the impugned award dated 15.12.2022 passed by the sole arbitrator.
2. When this petition came up for hearing on 06.01.2026, this Court passed the following order:
“Notice to respondent, returnable by 04.02.2026. Private notice is also permitted.
2.The main ground that was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there was unilateral appointment of an Arbitrator and the same violates the judgment of the Apex Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd. [ (2020) 20 SCC 760 ]. Hence, there shall be an order of interim stay, pending disposal of the present petition.
3.Post this case under the caption ‘For Orders’ on
04.02.2026.”
3. After notice was served on the respondent, a counsel undertook to file vakalath. The vakalat
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
