Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.40 seconds)Section 12 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 37 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 12 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 37 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Central Organisation For Railway ... vs M/S Eci Spic Smo Mcml (Jv) A Joint Venture ... on 17 December, 2019
194. In respect of the latter, the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct is
generally taken to be the touchstone of judicial independence and
integrity. Yet, such strict yardsticks cannot be made applicable in
24
Central Organisation For Railway Electrification v. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV),
reported at (2025) 4 SCC 641
63
2026:CHC-OS:14-DB
respect of Arbitrators, for the simple reason that the premise of the
Alternative Dispute Resolution mode of arbitration is party autonomy.
The parties to an arbitration agreement are free to choose any person
whomsoever as their chosen arbiter. Thus, arbitrators may come from a
wide pool of people, from varied walks of life. By the very nature of such
choice, arbitrators are generally chosen from the specific field of
knowledge pertaining to the disputes involved and, as such, have
current and/or past professional engagements in the very domain of
expertise involved in such disputes, as opposed to Judges in courts of
law, who are expected by and large to abstain not only from public life
and to refrain from expressing their opinions in public about subject-
matters which are or might come before them for adjudication, but also
to avoid having involvements which may give rise to conflicting interests
in the adjudicatory process. After all, judges are supposed to be
exemplary in conduct, both in and out of the court, rising above any
shadow of doubt regarding their integrity.