Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: seventh schedule in Himanshu Shekhar vs Prabhat Shekhar on 31 May, 2022Matching Fragments
13. Mr. Sethi countered the aforesaid submissions. He contended that none of the circumstances as referred to in the Seventh Schedule of the A&C Act were attracted. He submitted that the Arbitrator was equally related to the parties and not one of the parties. He submitted that the Parliament had used the expression "one of the parties" in Entry no. 9 of the Seventh Schedule of the A&C Act as in such a case, the same would lead to justifiable doubts as to the independence and impartiality of an arbitrator. However, if an arbitrator chosen by the parties is 4 (2019) 5 SCC 755 5 (2011) 14 SCC 770 6 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1950 equally related to both the parties, no objection, on account of his being partial to any one of the parties due to his relationship, could arise. Second, he submitted that the Arbitrator was related but was not closely related.
19. As noticed above, the Seventh Schedule of the A&C Act was introduced by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 based on the 246th Report of the Law Commission of India. The said Report indicates that the Law Commission had drawn extensively from the IBA Guidelines7 to suggest inclusion of the Seventh Schedule (referred to as 'Fifth Schedule in the said Report').
20. The IBA Guidelines include a Non-waivable Red List and a Waivable Red List. Entry no. 9 of the Seventh Schedule of the A&C 7 International Bar Association Guidelines on conflict of interest in International Arbitration Act is similarly worded as Clause 2.3.8 of the Waivable Red List. Neither the Seventh Schedule of the A&C Act nor the IBA Guidelines define the expression 'close family relationship'. However, there are number of statutes, which define the said expression.
25. The Seventh Schedule of the A&C Act is not exhaustive; the circumstances, as mentioned in the Seventh Schedule of the A&C Act, are indicative. Nonetheless, 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.