Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.22 seconds)Section 29 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Naresh Kanayalal Rajwani And 2 Ors vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited And Anr on 9 March, 2021
18. Further, the submission of the learned Counsel for the
Respondent that the challenge to the Award cannot be entertained in
view of there being no specific ground taken either in the arbitral
proceedings or in the Arbitration Petition viz. on the unilateral
appointment of learned Arbitrator vitiating the arbitral proceedings
and rendering the Award amenable to be set aside on this ground
alone, has not merit in view of the decision of this Court in Naresh
Kanayalal Rajwani (Supra) . By the said decision this Court has held
that in view of admitted facts, the issue of unilateral appointment of
the Arbitrator and Award being vitiated on this ground as being
contrary to Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act is a pure question of
law that goes to the root of the matter.
The Arbitration Act, 1940
Section 4 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Perkins Eastman Architects Dpc vs Hscc (India) Limited on 26 November, 2019
Such
appointment itself was vitiated in terms of this provision and the law
1 (2020) 20 SCC 620
4/15
::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2024 18:34:04 :::
8-ARBP 30.2021.doc
clarified by the the Supreme Court in the case of Perkins (supra).
Hence, the impugned Award deserves to be set aside on this ground
alone. Further, the submission of the counsel for the Respondent-
Bank therein was recorded viz. that the ground pertaining to Section
12(5) of the Arbitration Act was not specifically raised in the Petition.
It was submitted that in the absence of such ground being specifically
raised on behalf of the Petitioners, the same cannot be considered by
the Court.
1