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  

Party appointed sole arbitrator is ineligible in view of the Supreme Court’s 2-judge bench decision in Perkins case; the 3-judge bench decision in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification distinguished (Delhi High Court)(20 January 2020)

     Updates by Nishant Gupta

Proddatur Cable TV Digi Services v. SITI Cable Network Limited, O.M.P (T) (COMM.) 109/2019 Delhi High Court; single-judge bench, Jyoti Singh J.; Decided on 20.01.2020 An agreement of August 2015 between the parties provided for resolution of disputes by a sole arbitrator appointed by Siti Cable (defined in the arbitration

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 CORE principle |  The Perkins principle |  Voestalpine