Arbitrator cannot be changed because of delay in passing of award

Must Read

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years...

Follow us

Supreme Court of India declared that a party to a dispute cannot move an application for appointment of a new arbitrator merely because there was a delay in passing of the award.

Facts of the Case

Appellant awarded the tender for Road Transportation of ISO containers and cargo to Respondent. After delayed but successful execution of the tender, a dispute arose between the parties on certain issues. On respondent’s request according to the clauses of the agreement, a sole arbitrator was appointed by the appellant. Since both the parties were dissatisfied with the working of the sole arbitrator, they mutually agreed to the appointment of Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the appellant as the sole arbitrator. Despite the appointment of a new arbitrator, Proceedings moved at a snail’s pace. Respondent raised suspicion on impartiality and independence of the new arbitrator. After a few hearings respondent’s legal representatives gave his consent to Chairman-cum-Managing Director being the sole arbitrator. Arbitration moved ahead and proceedings were concluded. Subsequently, Arbitrator passed an order saying that due to tampering of file it will take him a little more time to pass the final award and requested the parties to be patient. Respondent sent a legal notice to appellant twice, saying that despite mutual settlement before the arbitrator, the arbitrator is yet to pass the award and requested the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.3,90,81,602/- which was agreed upon by both the parties. Appellant replied to the above-mentioned legal notice of the respondent saying that matter was not settled and they never agreed to pay any amount to the respondent. Thereafter, Respondent filed a petition under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 requesting Rajasthan High Court to appoint a new arbitrator. High Court appointed a new arbitrator. While the High Court was in session, arbitrator passed the award. Appellant challenged the said appointment before Supreme Court of India.

Issues

  1. Could an employee of one of the parties be appointed as the Arbitrator in the light of 2015 amendment?
  1. Was High Court correct in appointing a new arbitrator on account of delay in passing of award?

Judgement

Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India consisting of Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice R. Bhanumati after listening to both the sides answered the issues in the following manner:

On issue no.1, Bench said that

“In the case in hand, the arbitration proceedings started way back in 2009 long before 2015 Amendment Act came into force and therefore, 2015 Amendment Act is not applicable to the case in hand. The statutory provisions that would govern the matter are those which were then in force before the amendment.”
Moreover, Court added that “The respondent having participated in the proceedings before the arbitral tribunal for quite some time and also having expressed faith in the sole arbitrator, is not justified in challenging the appointment of the Managing Director of the appellant-Corporation as the sole arbitrator”

On the issue No.2

Bench set aside the order of High Court appointing the new arbitrator and quoted Russell on arbitration to support its decision. The bench said that mere delay in passing of award cannot be a ground to appoint a new arbitrator. Furthermore, commenting on the independence of the arbitrator bench also said that Respondent did not bring any material on the record which pointed to the fact that arbitration was carried out in a biased manner.

Author’s Opinion

Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 was brought to speed up the legal process in case of commercial disputes. However, In India, Arbitration proceedings still take a very long time to finish. 2015 Amendment makes it mandatory that arbitration proceedings should be completed in one year but it is not strictly enforced. New International Arbitration Centres are being built in India, for these institutions to be successful it is very important that arbitration disputes are resolved expeditiously.

 

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA). It prayed that severe restrictions...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -