Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.77 seconds)Section 13 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 42 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Amending Act, 1897
Perkins Eastman Architects Dpc & Anr vs Hscc India Limited on 17 March, 2023
21. But, in our view that has to be the logical
deduction from TRF Limited. Paragraph 50 of the 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
16/28
Arb. O.P(Com.Div). No.66 of 2023
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. 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 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 above judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court makes it clear that the
appointment of sole arbitrator unilaterally by one of the parties would be
ineligible by operation of law.
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., which
followed the decision in Roop Chand v. State of Punjab. It is
seemly to note here that the said principle has been followed
in Indore Vikas Pradhikaran.
Sanjay Pukhraj Bafna And Anr vs Volkswagen Finance Pvt. Ltd on 12 October, 2020
In "Sanjay Pukraj Bafna v. Volkswagon Finance (P) Ltd. Reported
in 2020 SCC OnLine Bombay 6362, it was held that an improper and
impermissible appointment imperils any arbitral award, for it goes to the root of
the matter.
Associate Builders vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 November, 2014
23.Further, any violation of provisions of the Act is against the public
policy of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held at paragraph No.27 in
the case of “Associate Builders vs. Delhi Development Authorities” reported
in 2015 3 SCC 49, which reads as follows: