Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(x) Ld. Sole Arbitrator is not competent in terms of Section 12(5) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and hence passed the impugned Award, which is bad in the eyes of law. Petitioner never waived his right to object to ineligibility of an arbitrator of arbitrator u/s 12(5) of the Act and there was no express agreement executed between the parties, after the dispute arose.

(xi) The appointment of the Sole Arbitrator violates Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, as the same arbitrator was appointed by Respondent No.1 in many matters (Stock Arbitrator).

28.02.2025 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is also submitted that the appointment of the ld. Arbitrator was not made in accordance with the provisions u/s 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by respondent no.1 as the consent of the petitioner was not taken before appointment of respondent no.2, and also that the petitioner never gave consent for the place of the arbitral proceedings as required u/s 20 of the Act. Thus, it is contended that the arbitration proceedings have bee held without the knowledge and consent of the applicant since, notice of the arbitration proceedings were never served upon the petitioner, ignoring provisions of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and whole proceedings were held, at the instance of respondent no.1. The applicant challenges the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, arguing that the arbitration process was unfair, the appointment of the arbitrator was unilateral and invalid, and the award was arbitrary, biased, and contrary to Indian law and principles of natural justice.

28.02.2025 Tribunal upon the petitioner and receipt of the Award by the petitioner, to set the period of limitation U/S 34(3) of the Act, in motion. As per law, there is no Bar of limitation to file the present petition, which is now being examined on merits of the petition, as hereinafter.

27. On merits of the petition, the petition U/S 34 of the Act, has been filed on behalf of petitioner against the impugned Arbitral Award dated 12.02.2022. The locus of the petitioner in the dispute is as a principal borrower against the auto loan sanctioned by the respondent no.1 herein. The admitted facts are that an Arbitral Award dated 12.02.2022 has been passed pursuant to the Invocation of the Arbitration Agreement by the respondent. The Sole Arbitrator has passed an ex-parte Award dated 12.02.2022, purportedly on merits of the claim filed by the respondent herein, before the Arbitrator. The present petition has been filed on behalf of the non-applicant/petitioner U/S 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, on various grounds which have been detailed herein-before vide para-5 of this judgment. Besides several grounds raised by the petitioner challenging the impugned Award, the prime most challenge to the impugned Award has been raised on the ground that the impugned Award has been passed by the sole Arbitrator who was unilaterally appointed by the respondent, without knowledge or consent of the petitioner and that the very appointment of the Arbitrator violates Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. It is prayed by way of the petition that the impugned Award OMP (Comm.) 11/2024 Ajay Kumar. Vs. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. Digitally signed by PREETI PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA AGRAWAL Date: