Back
ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, NAVIN SINHA, K. M. JOSEPH
Union Of India – Appellant
Versus
Tantia Constructions Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. disagreement with prior judgment on appointing authority's capacity. (Para 1) |
| 2. request for larger bench to review judgment. (Para 2) |
| 3. disposition of pending application. (Para 3) |
ORDER :
1. Having heard Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned ASG for sometime, it is clear that on the facts of this case, the judgment of the High Court cannot be faulted with. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed. However, reliance has been placed upon a recent three-Judge Bench decision of this Court delivered on 17.12.2019 in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification vs. M/s ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company, 2019 SCC OnLine 1635. We have perused the aforesaid judgment and prima facie disagree with it for the basic reason that once the appointing authority itself is incapacitated from referring the matter to arbitration, it does not then follow that notwithstanding this yet appointments may be valid depending on the facts of the case.
2. We therefore request the Hon’ble Chief Justice to constitute a larger Bench to look into the correctness of this judgment.
3. Pending application stands disposed of.
Disqualified arbitrators cannot appoint successors; unilateral requests do not waive statutory disqualifications under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Deviations from stipulated arbitration appointment procedures may be permitted under exceptional circumstances to ensure timely dispute resolution.
Doubts regarding the correctness of legal precedents can lead to the matter being referred to a larger Bench for resolution.
The court emphasized the necessity for impartiality in arbitration, ruling that automatic appointments of arbitrators undermined the arbitration clause, rendering the award invalid.
The unilateral appointment of an arbitrator without engaging the other party and the applicability of statutory provisions and legal precedents in determining the legitimacy of the appointment.
The court ruled that the appointment of arbitrators from the respondent's panel was valid, maintaining that established legal precedent surrounding impartiality does not support the petitioner's clai....
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....
An employee of the respondent or even a retired employee would be ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator. The panel of arbitrators should be broad-based and should include persons with diverse b....
The appointment of an arbitrator must comply with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, particularly Section 12(5), which disqualifies certain individuals from serving as arbitrators.
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
