Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.36 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 20 December, 2022
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
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.”
16/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.361 of 2022
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
Associate Builders vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 November, 2014
24. 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: