Delhi District Court
Care Medi System Private Limited And Anr vs M/S Bmw India Financial Services Pvt. ... on 1 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA,
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-01,
NORTH WEST, ROHINI, NEW DELHI
OMP (COMM) No.29/2023
1. CARE MEDI SYSTEM PRIVATE LIMITED
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR:-
MR. SANJEEV SAINI
OFFICE AT:
SHOP NO. S2, MALHAN PLAZA.
PLOT NO. 5, SECTOR 12. POCKET 7. DWARKA,
DELHI-110075
2. MRS. LEENA SAINI
W/O. SH. SANJEEV SAINI
R/O. A-12 D, DDA FLATS, MUNIRKA DELHI-110067
...Objectors/Petitioners
VS.
M/S BMW INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT LTD.
REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
THE OBEROI CORPORATE TOWER BUILDING NO. 11,
1ST FLOOR, DLF CYBER CITY. PHASE-II, GURUGRAM,
HARYANA-122002
ALSO AT
DLF CYBER CITY, PHASE II
BUILDING NO. 10, TOWER C, 14TH FLOOR
GURUGRAM,
HARYANA 122002
....Respondents
OMP (Comm.) 29/2023 Care Medi System Pvt. Ltd. & Anr Vs M/s BMW India Financial Services Pvt Ltd. Digitally Page 1/16
PREETI signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01
North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
01.10.2025
OBJECTION UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE ARBITRATION
& CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 FOR SETTING-ASIDE AND
STAY THE ARBITRAL AWARD DATED 26.09.2022, PASSED
IN ARBITRATION CASE TITLED AS 'BMW INDIA
FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. CARE MEDI
SYSTEM PRIVATE LIMITED '.
Date of institution of Petition : 09.02.2023
Date of Assignment to this court : 22.02.2023
Date of hearing of final argument : 15.09.2025
Date of Judgment : 01.10.2025
JUDGMENT
1. By way of this judgment, the present petition Under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called as A & C Act) is being taken up for adjudication, as per law.
2. This petition has been filed on behalf the Petitioner Care Medi System Private Ltd. (Respondent no.1/Borrower, in the Claim petition in question), through Sh. Sanjeev Saini, Director, and Ms. Leena Saini (Respondent no.2/Co-borrower, in the claim petition in question) seeking setting aside of Arbitral Award dated 26.09.2022 passed by Sh. Sanjay Aggarwal, Ld. Sole Arbitrator, in respect of claim of the respondent namely M/S BMW India Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. By way of the impugned Award, claim of the respondent/Claimant had been allowed.
3. Upon notice of the petition, Counsel for M/S BMW India Financial Services Pvt. Ltd./respondent appeared and filed its detailed reply/response to the petition.
OMP (Comm.) 29/2023 Care Medi System Pvt. Ltd. & Anr Vs M/s BMW India Financial Services Pvt Ltd. Page 2/16Digitally PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
01.10.2025
4. The Arbitral Record was summoned and is placed on record. Original Arbitral Record dated 26.09.2022 alongwith arbitral proceedings, have been appreciated.
5. The present petition has been filed on behalf of Petitioner U/S. 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the ex-parte Award passed by Ld. Sole Arbitrator Sh. Sanjay Aggarwal on 26.09.2022, on various grounds which have been crystalised herein-below : -
(i). The award dated 26.09.2022 passed by Ld. Sole Arbitrator is perverse, erroneous, bad in law, against principles of natural justice and liable to be set aside.
(ii). The impugned Award has been passed by Ld. Sole Arbitrator, who was unilaterally appointed by the respondent, without any consent of the petitioner and hence, not sustainable. Ld. Sole Arbitrator is not competent in terms of Section 12(5) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
(iii) Neither the respondent nor the Arbitrator intimated the initiation of arbitration proceedings, hence, the petitioner could not appear before the Sole Arbitrator on the first date. However, later, the Petitioners learnt that the Arbitrator is repeatedly and unilaterally appointed by the Respondent in all their arbitrations (Stock arbitrator), raising serious doubts about impartiality.
(iv). The award is against the public policy of India, being tainted OMP (Comm.) 29/2023 Care Medi System Pvt. Ltd. & Anr Vs M/s BMW India Financial Services Pvt Ltd. Page 3/16 Digitally PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
01.10.2025 by fraud and corruption.
(v). The Sole Arbitrator lacked jurisdiction as he was appointed solely by the respondent, without consent of the petitioner and is contrary to the law laid down in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd., Arbitration Application No. 32/2019. The Arbitrator also failed to appreciate this objection, when raised.
(vi). The arbitration agreement itself is invalid as unilateral appointment of arbitrator is not legally permissible.
(vii). The Arbitrator, in connivance with the respondent, passed the impugned award.
(viii). The Arbitrator, in connivance with respondent, wrongly allowed respondent's application U/S 17 of A & C Act, for sale of the disputed vehicle of the petitioner(s), contrary to the orders of the Ld. District Judge, Commercial Court, Shahdara dated 04.10.2021, during pendency of the arbitration proceedings, despite specific directions of Ld. Court, not to sell the vehicle till disposal of the petition). Respondent deliberately undervalued and sold the disputed vehicle, much below the market value (half the price), resulting huge loss to the petitioner(s).
(ix). It has become a regular practice of NBFCs to insert arbitration clauses in loan agreements and unilaterally appoint Arbitrators, resulting in biased Awards.
(x). The Arbitrator failed to provide the petitioners with documents filed by the respondent in the arbitration proceedings, despite requests. The petitioner was denied fair hearing and access to documents/records, resulting in procedural unfairness OMP (Comm.) 29/2023 Care Medi System Pvt. Ltd. & Anr Vs M/s BMW India Financial Services Pvt Ltd. Page 4/16 Digitally PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
01.10.2025 and breach of natural justice.
(xi). The proceedings were conducted in violation of principles of natural justice and were biased in favour of the respondent.
(xii). The award of Rs. 6,22,999.46 with 24% interest p.a. from 24.05.2022 is exorbitant and contrary to the Interest Act.
(xiii). The award suffers from patent illegality as it violates natural justice, proper procedure of appointment, and neutrality/impartiality of the arbitrator.
6. The written reply/response was filed on behalf of respondent to the present petition, wherein all the allegations made in the petition have been denied and it is contended that the present petition is not maintainable for setting aside the Award under Section 34 of the Act. It is submitted that the Arbitral Award dated 26.09.2022 has been passed after following due process of law and is a well reasoned Award contending that the present petition deserves to be dismissed as baseless and filed on unfounded grounds. Further, as submitted, Arbitral Award is stated to be neither against the public policy nor perverse or patently illegal, as claimed in the petition. It is contended that Petitioner was duly served with Notice Invocation of arbitration/ appointment of Arbitrator dated 09.06.2021 at the address as mentioned in the objection petition, but the petitioner intentionally avoided the same. It is alleged that the Petitioner appeared before Ld. Arbitrator, expressed their willingness to settle the matter instead of raising objection/contesting the appointment of Ld. Arbitrator. It is alleged that the Award was OMP (Comm.) 29/2023 Care Medi System Pvt. Ltd. & Anr Vs M/s BMW India Financial Services Pvt Ltd. Page 5/16 Digitally PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
01.10.2025 passed on 26.09.2022 and posted to opposite party on 07.10.2022, however, the present petition has been filed on 09.02.2023, much beyond the stipulated period of 90 days, to challenge the Award. Hence, present petition is barred by limitation. It is alleged that petitioner(s) have concealed material facts, intentionally avoided to further appear before Ld. Arbitrator to delay the proceedings, praying for dismissal of the petition for want of merits.
7. Arguments heard, as addressed by both the sides. Arbitral Award/record has been perused. Legal position has been examined. During the course of arguments on behalf of the petitioner, two main grounds that have been assailed for challenging the impugned Award are based on the legal position wherein the very appointment of the Sole Arbitrator has been challenged. Besides other objections on merits of the case, legal objection as to the impugned Award being unsustainable has been raised as being against public policy and principles of natural justice.
8. On merits of the Award, Ld. Counsel for Petitioner challenged the impugned Arbitral Award dated 26.09.2022 with the contentions that in October 2016, the petitioner took/obtained a loan of Rs.23,00,000/- from the respondent company, for purchase of a BMW X1 20D Expedition (Reg. No. HR26CZ1285, Engine No. 0045Y078, Chassis No. WBAHU170305075175) from Deutsche Motoren Pvt. Ltd., OMP (Comm.) 29/2023 Care Medi System Pvt. Ltd. & Anr Vs M/s BMW India Financial Services Pvt Ltd. Page 6/16 Digitally PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
01.10.2025 which was repayable in 84 instalments. The Petitioner paid initial EMIs, but due to COVID-19 pandemic and certain other difficulties petitioner no.1 was unable to continue payments. Despite requesting time and easier installments, the Respondent pursued recovery before Sole Arbitrator, without knowledge and consent of the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent/Claimant approached the Ld. District Judge, Commercial Court-01, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, seeking possession of the disputed vehicle. Vide order dated 25.06.2021, the Court allowed the respondent's petition, appointed authorised officer of respondent as receiver and directed initiation of arbitration within 15 days, prohibiting sale of the car without Court permission. Further, by order dated 04.10.2021, the Court reiterated that the car must not be sold until conclusion of arbitral proceedings. However, Ld. Arbitrator in connivance with respondent allowed the application U/s 17 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act and the respondent, in clear violation of the order of the court dted 04.10.2021, sold the car at an undervalued price during the pendency of the arbitral proceedings. It is contended that the impugned Award has been passed in gross abuse of the process of law and is totally unsustainable. Respondent acted in bad faith by proceeding directly with Arbitration, disregarding established rules and legal procedures. The Arbitral Award in question has been passed in utter disregard of the real facts of the case, owing to biased and illegal approach of the Sole Arbitrator. It is contended that the Ld. Sole Arbitrator, vide impugned Award, has passed unfounded claim in favour of the Claimant, against the OMP (Comm.) 29/2023 Care Medi System Pvt. Ltd. & Anr Vs M/s BMW India Financial Services Pvt Ltd. Page 7/16 Digitally PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
01.10.2025 tenets of law.
9. The contentions on behalf of the Petitioner have been strongly opposed on behalf of the respondent asserting that a well reasoned and legally enforceable Award has been passed by Ld. Sole Arbitrator Sh. Sanjay Aggarwal. It is contended that the respondent company appointed the Ld. Arbitrator in accordance with the loan agreement and law. Prior to the appointment, an intimation letter was issued to the petitioner, who raised no objection. The petitioner also appeared before the Sole Arbitrator and expressed willingness to settle the matter, rather than contest the appointment of Ld. Arbitrator. It has been contended that the petitioner appeared before Ld. Arbitrator but failed to raise any objections during arbitration proceedings, thus, have waived their right to challenge the appointment of the Sole Arbitrator. It is further contended that Petitioner failed to repay the amount utilised against the vehicle Loan facility and therefore, as per the binding Arbitration Agreement between the parties, the claim/dispute had to be referred for Arbitration. It is stated that the respondent, being a finance company, rightly appointed a specialized arbitrator. The appointment process and arbitration proceedings were conducted lawfully, as the respondent selected Sh. Sanjay Aggarwal - an expert in finance, NBFC, and banking matters - from a specialized panel. Hence, the petitioner's objection is not maintainable. It is contended that the respondent/claimant filed application under Section 17 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act seeking permission to sell the OMP (Comm.) 29/2023 Care Medi System Pvt. Ltd. & Anr Vs M/s BMW India Financial Services Pvt Ltd. Page 8/16 Digitally PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
01.10.2025 vehicle, to which the petitioner duly filed a reply. After considering the facts and the petitioner's response, the Ld. Sole Arbitrator allowed the respondent's application on merits and in accordance with law. after getting the sale permission, the respondent company sold the subject vehicle and adjusted the sale amount in the outstanding amount. It is stated that a valid and enforceable order/Award dated 26.09.2022 was passed by Ld. Arbitrator and that the petition be dismissed.
10. The Court has appreciated vehement arguments on behalf of respective Counsels and has perused and briefly reproduced herein-above the averments and pleadings before the Court. The Statutory provisions have also been considered. During course of arguments, numerous authorities have been relied upon by Ld. Counsels, which have also been appreciated as per the facts and circumstances of this case.
11. Perusal of judicial records reveals that vide orders dated 03.01.2024, application U/S 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act r/w Section 5 of Limitation Act, filed on behalf of petitioner, seeking condonation of 22 days, was allowed. Vide orders of even date, another application u/s 36(2) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act r/w Order 39 Rule (1) & (2) CPC r/w Section 151 CPC, filed on behalf of petitioner, praying for ad interim ex-parte stay against execution of the impugned arbitral Award, was also allowed.
OMP (Comm.) 29/2023 Care Medi System Pvt. Ltd. & Anr Vs M/s BMW India Financial Services Pvt Ltd. Page 9/16Digitally PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
01.10.2025
12. In the peculiar facts of the case, the impugned Award dated 26.09.2022 has been passed by the Sole Arbitrator Sh. Sanjay Aggarwal, after the claimant/respondent nominated the Sole Arbitrator for his appointment as Sole Arbitrator, which was accepted. Allegedly, upon notice of arbitration, the Petitioner, appeared and contested the petition before the Arbitrator, but later, was proceeded ex-parte. The claimant filed its Statement of Claim, affidavit of evidence. The Arbitrator proceedings were concluded after final hearing, leading to passing of the impugned Award dated 26.09.2022. By way of the said Arbitral Award, respondent no.1 herein as claimant, sought recovery on outstanding dues computed in respect of Vehicle Loan Facility availed by the Petitioner herein, from the respondent. The claim was deemed proved by the Ld. Arbitrator, who passed the impugned Award dated 26.09.2022, as per the Claim, alongwith interest and costs.
13. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner raising objections on several grounds, as crystalised in the foregoing Para 5 herein-above. It is contended in support of the petition that the Petitioners did not receive any Notice of Invocation or information of appointment of Sole Arbitrator vide notice/letter dated 09.06.2021 or notice of appearance of first hearing dated 18.06.2021. It is further case contended vehemently that the appointment as Sole Arbitrator, unilaterally and without consent of the Petitioner, is bad in the eyes of law and violative of principles of natural justice and therefore, any Award or Order OMP (Comm.) 29/2023 Care Medi System Pvt. Ltd. & Anr Vs M/s BMW India Financial Services Pvt Ltd. Page 10/16 Digitally PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
01.10.2025 dated 26.09.2022, passed by the Sole Arbitrator, in disregard of law, is bad in the eyes of law and liable to be set-aside. On the other hand, respondent, as claimant before the Sole Arbitrator, has submitted contentions in favour of justification of passing the impugned Award by the Ld. Arbitrator, claiming that the petitioner herein appeared before the Arbitrator and did not explicitly raised any objection as regards his appointment and that the non-claimant was deliberately avoiding payments against the credit loan and that the impugned Award has been passed on actual facts of the case, as per law.
14. Considered. Arbitral proceedings have been perused. It is stated in the Award that Claimant (Respondent) sent letter of appointment/Notice of invocation letter dated 09.06.2021 to Mr. Sanjay Aggarwal (Ld.Sole Arbitrator), with copy allegedly sent to respondent (Petitioner herein), via sped post, appointing thereby Mr. Sanjay Aggarwal as Sole Arbitrator to decide the dispute. As per the case of the Petitioner, the said notice was never delivered to him, before or after the claim petition was entertained by the Sole Arbitrator. Perusal of arbitral record further reflects that notice of appearance dated 18.06.2021 was stated to have been issued to the respondents (Petitioners herein) for 08.07.2021. As per the Arbitration proceedings, the respondents first appeared to participate in the arbitration proceedings on 29.07.2021 however, later proceeded ex-parte on on 26.04.2022, by the Ld. Arbitrator. It is further apparent from the arbitral record that there has been no written consent OMP (Comm.) 29/2023 Care Medi System Pvt. Ltd. & Anr Vs M/s BMW India Financial Services Pvt Ltd. Page 11/16 Digitally PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
01.10.2025 furnished by the petitioner herein to the appointment or continuation of arbitration proceedings before the Sole Arbitrator in question.
15. It shall be relevant now relevant to examine the well settled legal position, in regard to the scope of interference by the Court as per Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The relevant statutory provisions which empowers the Petitioner to take recourse to a Court against the Arbitral Award, has been provided under Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 34, as amended by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019. This Court has to exercise its judicial discretion in the backdrop of the Statutory Law provided under Section 34 of the Act, by way of well settled judicial pronouncements and landmark judgements of Hon'ble Superior Courts.
16. The numerous landmark binding judgments in "Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. Vs. HSCC (India) Ltd." reported in [2019] 17 S.C.R. 275 and "Bharat Broadband Network Limited Vs. United Telecoms Limited" reported in [2019] 6 S.C.R 97, have laid down resonating legal position to hold that a unilaterally appointed arbirator is de jure ineligible to perform his functions and that his mandate is automatically terminated under Section 14(1)((a) of the Act. It has been further laid down that the ineligibility of the Sole Arbitrator, who has been unilaterally appointed by the claimant, as contained in Section 12(5) of Act, can be cured only through an express waiver.
OMP (Comm.) 29/2023 Care Medi System Pvt. Ltd. & Anr Vs M/s BMW India Financial Services Pvt Ltd. Page 12/16Digitally PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
01.10.2025
17. In this respect, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has been further pleased to consider and lay down the binding law in EFA(COMM) 2/2023 CM APPL. 25636/2023, CM APPL. 25637/2023, CM APPL. 25638/2023, CM APPL. 25639/2023 & CM APPL. 25635/2023, in case titled 'SBI Card and Payment Services Limited. Vs. Narendra Kumar Prajapat' vide orders dated 17.05.2023. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has been pleased to hold that an Award rendered by an Arbitrator, who is ineligible to act as an Arbitrator by virtue of Section 12(5) of the 'Act' is a nullity and, therefore, cannot be enforced. The finding of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi have been fortified by Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 47322/2023, vide orders dated 12.12.2023, and is accordingly, the law of the land.
18. The legal position has been now nailed and well settled by the recent pronouncement by five Judge's Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled 'Central Organisation of Railway Electrification Vs. M/s ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV)' in Civil Appeal Nos.9486-9487 of 2019, dated 08.11.2024. The Hon'ble Apex Court, by majority view, was seized of the matter pertaining to a Government Agency wherein the arbitration proceedings involved three member tribunal. The Hon'ble Apex Court duly considered the Reference after appreciating the adequate safeguards provided within the Arbitration Act to ensure a level playing field between the disputing parties, having OMP (Comm.) 29/2023 Care Medi System Pvt. Ltd. & Anr Vs M/s BMW India Financial Services Pvt Ltd. Page 13/16 Digitally PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
01.10.2025 commercial conflict of interests which needs to be adjudicated by a mutual forum. The Hon'ble Supreme Court gave the following authoritative and binding conclusion as under:-
"VII. Neither public policy considerations under the Contract Act or the Arbitration Act restrain the parties to the arbitration from maintaining a panel of arbitrators in any manner. However, arbitration agreements enabling one of the parties to unilaterally constitute arbitral tribunal do not inspire confidence of independence and may violate the public policy requirement of constituting an independent and impartial tribunal. The Court will, therefore, scrutinise the agreement and hold them to be invalid if it considers it appropriate."
19. The position has been followed and reiterated by our own Hon'ble High Court in 'M/s Mahavir Prasad Gupta and Sons Vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi': FAO(COMM) 170/2023, dated 31.05.2025, in respect of legal position on unilateral appointment of the Sole and Presiding Arbitrator, as under:-
a) Mandatory Requirement: Any arbitration agreement providing unilateral appointment of the sole or presiding arbitrator is invalid. A unilateral appointment by any party in the arbitrations seated in India is strictly prohibited and considered as null and void since its very inception. Resultantly, any proceedings conducted before such unilaterally appointed Arbitral Tribunal are also nullity and cannot result into an enforceable award being against Public Policy of India and can be set aside under Section 34 of the Act and/or refused to be enforced under Section 36 of the Act.
b) Deemed Waiver: The proviso to Section 12(5) of the Act requires an express agreement in writing. The conduct of the parties, no matter how acquiescent or conducive, is inconsequential and cannot constitute a valid waiver under the proviso to Section 12(5) of the Act. The ineligibility of a unilaterally appointed arbitrator can be waived only by an express OMP (Comm.) 29/2023 Care Medi System Pvt. Ltd. & Anr Vs M/s BMW India Financial Services Pvt Ltd. Page 14/16 Digitally PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
01.10.2025 agreement in writing between the parties after the dispute has arisen between them. Section 12(5) of the Act is an exception to Section 4 of the Act as there is no deemed waiver under Section 4 of the Act for unilateral appointment by conduct of participation in the proceedings. The proviso to Section 12(5) of the Act requires an "express agreement in writing‟ and deemed waiver under Section 4 of the Act will not be applicable to the proviso to Section 12(5) of the Act.
c) Award by an Ineligible Arbitrator is a Nullity: An award passed by a unilaterally appointed arbitrator is a nullity as the ineligibility goes to the root of the jurisdiction. Hence, the award can be set aside under Section 34(2)(b) of the Act by the Court on its own if it "finds that‟ an award is passed by unilaterally appointed arbitrator without even raising such objection by either party.
d) Stage of Challenge: An objection to the lack of inherent jurisdiction of an arbitrator can be taken at any stage during or after the arbitration proceedings including by a party who has appointed the sole or presiding arbitrator unilaterally as the act of appointment is not an express waiver of the ineligibility under proviso to Section 12(5) of the Act. Such objection can be taken even at stage of challenge to the award under Section 34 of the Act or during the enforcement proceedings under Section 36 of the Act. (emphasis added)
20. In the present case, the impugned award dated 26.09.2022, was passed by a Sole Arbitrator, who was unilaterally appointed by way of letter dated 09.06.2021, issued by respondent as Claimant. The very appointment of the Sole Arbitrator suffers from a permanent and indelible mark of bias and prejudice and as per Law, such a unilaterally appointed Arbitrator cannot be deemed to be an unbiased, neutral and independent arbitral OMP (Comm.) 29/2023 Care Medi System Pvt. Ltd. & Anr Vs M/s BMW India Financial Services Pvt Ltd. Digitally Page 15/16 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
01.10.2025 tribunal. Furthermore, it is matter of record that the Petitioners, who were respondents in the Arbitration proceedings, did not ever issue any Letter of Consent in favour of the Arbitrator and accordingly, there is absence of any express waiver as contemplated by Section 12(5) of the Act, to lend any legal sanctity to the Arbitral proceedings, that took place before the Ld. Sole Arbitrator, who has been unilaterally appointed by the Claimant, without consent of the Petitioner. Therefore, the Sole Arbitrator, as the adjudicating Arbitral Tribunal lacks inherent jurisdiction and competence to adjudicate the disputes in hand, and thus, the impugned award is an unenforceable award and a nullity, as per law
21. Accordingly, this Court is satisfied that the Award dated 26.09.2022 passed by Ld. Arbitrator is unenforceable, void ab initio and non-est in the eyes of law and cannot be sustained and is therefore, set aside.
Parties to bear their own cost.
Petition stands disposed of accordingly. File be consigned to Record R oom.
Announced in the open Court today
on this 01st day of October, 2025 PREETI Digitally
signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
01.10.2025 OMP (Comm.) 29/2023 Care Medi System Pvt. Ltd. & Anr Vs M/s BMW India Financial Services Pvt Ltd. Page 16/16 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01 North-West/Rohini/New Delhi.
01.10.2025