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  

Constitution of arbitral tribunal comprising of serving officers of the respondent party is illegal and of no consequence; Voestalpine, TRF, Bharat Broadband and Perkins applied (Bombay High Court)

     Updates by Editor

ITD Cementation India Ltd. v. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 5349 Bombay High Court, single–judge bench, G. S. Kulkarni, J.; decided on 12 December 2019 Under the arbitration clause, a “Standing Arbitral Tribunal” had to be formed within three months of the execution of the contract. The

Continue reading
Categories: Appointment of arbitrator |  Bias |  Failure or impossibility to act |  Fifth Schedule |  Independence and Impartiality of arbitrator |  Neutrality of arbitrator |  Seventh Schedule |  Standing arbitral tribunal |  Termination of mandate and substitution of arbitrator |  The Perkins principle  

The mandate of the arbitrator terminates if: parties have fixed time-limit for rendering the award; the time-limit is extendable only by mutual consent; consent for extension is denied by one party; and, the award is not rendered within the time fixed. (Supreme Court)

     Updates by Garima Mittal , Gunjan Soni

  Jayesh H. Pandya v. Subhtex India Ltd. 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1101[1] Supreme Court, 3-judge bench, N. V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Ajay Rastogi, JJ.; decided on 27 August 2019   The arbitration agreement set four months’ time for the arbitrator to make the award. This time-limit was extendable,

Continue reading
Categories: De jure unable to perform functions |  Failure or impossibility to act |  Party autonomy |  Sanctity of party choice |  Termination of mandate |  Time limit for concluding arbitration