Whether the High Court can appoint a substituted arbitrator in a petition seeking termination of mandate of arbitrator?

-

 



 Shubham Budhiraja[1]

 

Mr. A took a loan from the Bank. Due to non-payments of the EMI, Bank invoked the arbitration agreement and unilaterally appointed the arbitrator. Mr. A protested for such unilateral appointment. However, the Ld. arbitrator continued the proceedings. Mr. A filed section 12(5) petition seeking terminating the mandate of the arbitrator and to substitute the arbitrator to start afresh. The Bank agitated that the Court cannot appoint the arbitrator under section 12(5) and a separate petition is required under section 13 for this purpose. The Hon’ble High Court held that unilateral appointment of the arbitrator by the Bank cannot be sustained in law. It is not necessary for a party to make a challenge under Section 13 of the Act. A petition for terminating the mandate of an arbitrator who is ineligible under Section 12(5) of the Act and for appointment of a substitute arbitrator, would be maintainable.[2]

 

 

(I)                   It is no longer res-integra that unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is in the teeth of the law as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments. It has been held time and again by Supreme Court that unilateral appointment of arbitrator by an authority which is interested in the outcome or decision of the dispute is impermissible in law.

 

(II)                 As per settled law, fairness, transparency and impartiality are virtues which are important for effective adjudication of a dispute through arbitration. Applying the yardstick, if the appointing authority of an arbitrator is a head or an employee of a party to the agreement including a company, then its interest in the outcome of the arbitral proceedings is a fact that cannot be denied. Once such an authority or person appoints an arbitrator, as per the law as laid down by Supreme Court, the ineligibility would permeate to the arbitrator so appointed.

 

(III)              As per Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment in Bharat Broadband Network Limited Vs United Telecoms Limited, (2019) 5 SCC 755, It is not necessary for a party to make a challenge under Section 13 of the Act. A petition for terminating the mandate of an arbitrator who is ineligible under Section 12(5) of the Act and for appointment of a substitute arbitrator, would be maintainable.

 


[1] Advocate, Delhi High Court [LLB, ACS, BCOM(H)], Budhirajalawchambers@gmail.com , +91-9654055315, Member, Legal Aid Committee-Bar Council of Delhi [2022-23], Member, Research Committee- NIRC ICSI [2021-2022], Secretary- NGO Shaura Ek Samman (Regd.)

[2] Atelier Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. v. Religare, Delhi High Court, Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/005382, Judgment dated 07/12/2022

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

REPUGANCY UNDER ARTICLE 254 & TEST OF VALIDATING LAW

-
Image
  Shubham Budhiraja [1] [1] Company Secretary, LLB Final Year,DU & Bcom (H) The land acquisition falls in concurrent list and parliament in year 2013 has introduced a new act which provides for rehabilitation, compensation and procedure on land acquisition of property. The State of T.N has made 3 different state laws w.r.t. land acquisition which was struck off by the High Court. Thereafter, state of TN in year 2019 enacted the same law but with president assent under Article 254 to avoid the repugnancy with 2013 act under Article 254. The appeal filed before apex court w.r.t. repugnancy of 2019 state law with 2013 central law & test of validating the struck off law. The Supreme Court observed as: VALIDATING A LAW WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT Case Law Relevant Remarks National  Agricultural  Cooperative  Marketing  Federation  of India Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union o...
Read more

Whether a person can be appointed as an arbitrator if his daughter is married to the son of the eldest brother of one of the parties in the arbitration proceedings?

-
Image
    Shubham Budhiraja [1] Two brothers running a family business in the form of a company and dispute arise between them and both decide to resolve through arbitration. During course of arbitration proceedings, one of party filed Section 14(2) r/w Section 15 Petition filed challenging mandate of arbitrator as being terminated because son of arbitrator is married to daughter of eldest brother of one of party and thus should be disqualified under Section 12(5) being ‘close family relationship’. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court declined the relief and held that neither the Seventh Schedule of the A&C Act nor the IBA Guidelines define the expression ‘close family relationship’. The plain language of Entry no. 9 indicates that it is not the legislative intent to render a distant relative of the parties to be ineligible for being appointed as an arbitrator, if both the parties so agree. It is not sufficient that the arbitrator is related to any one of the parties; the relation...
Read more

Whether unstamped agreement to sell executed in the year 1988 can be relied upon in suit for possession?

-
Image
  Whether unstamped agreement to sell executed in the year 1988 can be relied upon in suit for possession?   Under what circumstances, photocopy of agreement to sell can be relied upon as secondary evidence?   Shubham Budhiraja [1]   A filed a suit for possession against B on basis of agreement to sell executed in the year 1989. During the hearing, A filed IA for reading photocopy of agreement to sell as secondary evidence because he is not able to find the original agreement to sell. The Trial Court allowed the IA but in review rejected that because agreement to sell was insufficiently stamped therefore bar of section 35 of stamp act applies. The High Court confirmed the order. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that bar of Section 35 will not apply because amendment of 1990 wherein explanation was added to the stamp act was substantive in nature and therefore new obligation of stamping cannot be imposed on agreement of sell executed between A and B. [2] ...
Read more