Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.16 seconds)S H R I S U S H E E L K U M A R S H A R M A A N D vs M S D E E S C H E M I C A L S P R I V A T E L I on 21 July, 2016
Sri Gantavya Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant, on the other hand has referred to the Explanation 1 of Section 12(1)(a)(b), which says that the grounds stated in 5th Schedule shall only serve as a guide in determining whether the circumstances exist which can give rise to a justified doubt as to the independence or impartiality of an Arbitrator. He has submitted that Schedule-V does not talk of grounds of ineligibility of the Arbitrator but talks of ground which might raise justifiable doubts as to the independence and impartiality. He has further submitted that in all cases, Rule 24 would not be an complete bar. He has referred to a judgement rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in H.R.D. Corporation Vs. G.A.I.L., (2018) 12 SCC 471. He has read out paragraph-24 of the said judgment wherein the Supreme Court has said that Rule 24 does not create any absolute bar and has to be read harmoniously with Rule 16 of Schedule-V.
This Court is of the considered opinion that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been framed with the avowed object of expeditious disposal of the disputes arising out between the parties under an agreement which has an arbitration clause in it and in case, the opposite party herein wish to challenge any finding of the proposed Arbitrator of the applicant, namely, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anurag Kumar (Retd.), they may raise valid ground of Rule 24 of the Schedule-V even on the termination of the Arbitration and the passing of the Arbitral Award. This may not lead to any saving of time nor expeditious disposal of the dispute between the parties.
Section 12 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Finance Act, 1996
1