Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (2.64 seconds)The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 42 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Roop Chand vs State Of Punjab on 10 October, 1962
51. Be it noted in the said case, reference was made
to Behari Kunj Sahkari Awas Samiti v. State of U.P.9 ,
which followed the decision in Roop Chand v. State of
Punjab8 . It is seemly to note here that the said principle
has been followed in Indore Vikas Pradhikaran10 .
The Amending Act, 1897
Perkins Eastman Architects Dpc & Anr vs Hscc India Limited on 20 December, 2022
21. But, in our view that has to be the logical
deduction from TRF Limited4 . Paragraph 50 of the
15/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Arb.O.P (Com.Div.) No.159 of 2022
decision shows that this Court was concerned with the
issue, “whether the Managing Director, after becoming
ineligible by operation of law, is he still eligible to
nominate an Arbitrator” The ineligibility referred to
therein, was as a result of operation of law, in that a person
having an interest in the dispute or in the outcome or
decision thereof, must not only be ineligible to act as an
arbitrator but must also not be eligible to appoint anyone
else as an arbitrator and that such person cannot and
should not have any role in charting out any course to the
dispute resolution by having the power to appoint an
arbitrator. The next sentences in the paragraph, further
show that cases where both the parties could nominate
respective arbitrators of their choice were found to be
completely a different situation. The reason is clear that
whatever advantage a party may derive by nominating an
arbitrator of its choice would get counter balanced by
equal power with the other party. But, in a case where only
one party has a right to appoint a sole arbitrator, its choice
will always have an element of exclusivity in determining
or charting the Arbitration Application No.32 of 2019
Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. v. HSCC (India)
Ltd. 24 course for dispute resolution. Naturally, the person
who has an interest in the outcome or decision of the
dispute must not have the power to appoint a sole
arbitrator. That has to be taken as the essence of the
16/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Arb.O.P (Com.Div.) No.159 of 2022
amendments brought in by the Arbitration and Conciliation
(Amendment) Act, 2015 (Act 3 of 2016) and recognised by
the decision of this Court in TRF Limited.”
Therefore, the unilateral appointment of Arbitrator is non-est in law.