Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The impugned award has been challenged on the following grounds;

(a) Unilateral appointment of the Arbitrator, in violation of the provisions of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and contrary to the statutory mandate of equal treatment of the parties under Section 18 of the said Act.

(b) Legal embargo in the appointment of the Arbitrator by a party which had a substantial finance interest in the outcome of the arbitral proceeding and in the claim made before the learned Arbitrator. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Improper constitution of the arbitral tribunal.

(c) Violation of the principle of equal treatment of the parties in an arbitral proceeding which was applicable from the very initial stage of appointment of an Arbitrator.

(d) Absence of an express agreement in writing by the petitioners, thereby waving the applicability of the provisions of the Section 12(5) of the said Act.

(e) Mere participation in the arbitral proceeding would not amount to waiver of the applicability of the provisions of Section 12(5) of the said Act.

(vii) Sohan Minerals and Mining Company Pvt. Limited Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited reported in (MANU/WB/0216/2021).

(viii) Ravi Realcons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chief Engineers and Another reported in (2022) SCC Online Cal 751

(ix) A.K. Builders Vs. Delhi State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (2022) SCC Online Del

627.

7. Mr. Jishu Choudhary, learned senior advocate for the petitioners submitted that, even if the petitioners did not pray for termination of the mandate of the learned Arbitrator in the course of arbitral proceeding, challenge to the independence of the learned Arbitrator and violation of Schedule V and VII of the Act could be made after the award was passed, in an application under Section 34 of the said Act.

23. On the issue of limitation it was submitted that this application was barred under the provisions of Section 34 (3) of the said Act. The period of limitation was three months, extendable by another thirty days from the date of receipt of the award. The award was passed on December 28, 2017 and duly communicated to the petitioners. The postal receipt stood testimony to such fact. Even if there is no service return or signature of the addressee in the acknowledgment due card, the records of the arbitral tribunal clearly demonstrated that the 2025:CHC-OS:236 petitioners were not only aware of the arbitral proceeding, but they also participated in the same. Moreover, the arbitral award was dispatched by registered post to the same address of the petitioners in which the application for execution has been received. The postal receipt evidencing such dispatch was a part of the records and the same had gone unconverted.