Appointment of arbitrators in multi-party arbitration—when will post-Dutco reforms come to India?

     Blog by Umang Bhat Nair

A. ACSA Global GVK Airport—a test case for appointment in multiple-respondents scenario It was reported[1] in June this year (2020) that in ACSA Global Limited v. GVK Airport Holdings Limited and others[2] the Supreme Court of India will be considering the issue of appointment of arbitrators in a multi-party arbitration.

Continue reading
Categories: Appointment of arbitrator |  Dutco |  Section 11  

Unilateral right of appointing sole arbitrator not valid under the Perkins rule even if the right was not with any individual but the “company” (Delhi High Court)

     Update by Meenakshi K. K.

M/s. OMCON Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Indiabulls Investment Advisors Ltd Court: High Court of Delhi | Case Number: OMP (T) (Comm) 35 /2020 | Citation: Not available currently | Bench: Rekha Palli J | Date: 01 September 2020 Applying the Perkins rule, the Delhi High Court has ruled that a unilateral right

Continue reading
Categories: Appointment of arbitrator |  Entry 1 Seventh Schedule |  Impartiality |  Independence and Impartiality of arbitrator |  Independence of arbitrator |  Neutrality of arbitrator |  Party appointed sole arbitrator |  Party autonomy |  Section 12 |  Section 14 |  Section 15 |  Termination of mandate |  Termination of mandate and substitution of arbitrator |  The Perkins principle  

Once the agreed-procedure fails, the Court can appoint the Presiding Arbitrator. The panel of arbitrators maintained by a body administering arbitration must be broad-based (Delhi High Court)

     Update by Amitabh Abhijit

IRB Ahmedabad Vadodara Super Express Tollway Pvt. Ltd. v. National Highway Authority of India Court: Delhi Hight Court| ARB.P. 860/2019 & IA No.208/2020 | Citation: Not available currently | Bench: Rekha Palli J | Date: 27 August 2020   A single judge of the Delhi High Court appointed the Presiding

Continue reading
Categories: Appointment of arbitrator |  Presiding Arbitrator |  SAROD |  Section 11 (6) |  Section 12 |  Voestalpine principle  

An arbitration clause which says disputes “may” be referred to arbitration is not a binding arbitration agreement; the pre-arbitral mechanism of discussion need not be followed when it is clear parties do not intend any settlement (Bombay High Court)

     Update by Nayanikaa Shukla

Quick Heal v. NCS Computers and another Court: Bombay High Court | Case Number: Arbitration Petition No.43 of 2018| Citation: Not currently available | Judge: SK Kathawalla J | Date: 05 June 2020 | Available at: Website of Bombay High Court https://bombayhighcourt.nic.in A. THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE STATED THAT THE DISPUTE

Continue reading
Categories: Appointment of arbitrator |  Arbitration agreement  |  Pre-arbitral mechanism |  Pre-arbitral procedure |  Section 11  

The appointment of sole-arbitrator by the Government in a dispute where one party is a government company (a public sector undertaking) is valid (Punjab & Haryana High Court)

     Update by Arushi Bhagotra

Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. v. State of Haryana and another Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court | Case Number: Civil Revision 7191 of 2019 | Citation: MANU/PH/0428/2020 | Currently not available | Judge: Alka Sarin J | Date: 03 June 2020 | Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/157439483/ THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE AND APPOINTMENT OF

Continue reading
Categories: Appointment of arbitrator |  Bias |  Failure or impossibility to act |  Fifth Schedule |  Grounds of challenge |  Independence and Impartiality of arbitrator |  Neutrality of arbitrator |  Right to appoint arbitrator |  Right to nominate arbitrator |  Section 12 |  Section 13 |  Section 14 |  Seventh Schedule |  Sole arbitrator |  Termination of mandate and substitution of arbitrator |  The Perkins principle |  The TRF principle