Category: Neutrality of arbitrator

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  

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  

Appointment procedure skewed in one party’s favour can constitute de jure inability under Section 14 ACA (Delhi High Court)

     Updates by Kriti

Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. Public Works Department; 2020 SCC OnLine Del 33 High Court of Delhi; Single-judge bench; Rajiv Shakdher, J.; Decided on 9 January 2020 The background Larsen and Toubro Ltd. (“L&T”) and the Public Works Department of the Government of NCT of Delhi (“PWD”) had a contract

 Continue reading
Categories: Appointment of arbitrator |  Appointment of substituted arbitrator |  Entry 1 Seventh Schedule |  Entry 31 Fifth Schedule |  Impartiality |  Independence and Impartiality of arbitrator |  Neutrality of arbitrator |  Pre-arbitral dispute resolution mechanism |  Section 14 |  Section 15 |  Termination of mandate |  Termination of mandate and substitution of arbitrator  

When the agreement specifically provides for appointment of an arbitral tribunal from a panel of serving or retired Railway Officers, the appointment should be in terms of the agreement; TRF case and Perkins case distinguished (Supreme Court of India)

     Updates by Editor

Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI-SPIC-SMO_MCML (JV), 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1635 Supreme Court of India, 3-judge bench, R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. decided on 17 December 2019 This is a recent addition to the list of cases on appointment of arbitrator versus the principles of

 Continue reading
Categories: Appointment of arbitrator |  Arbitral tribunal of serving or retired officers |  Bias |  Delay in nominating arbitrator |  Fifth Schedule |  Independence and Impartiality of arbitrator |  Neutrality of arbitrator |  Right to appoint arbitrator |  Right to nominate arbitrator |  Seventh Schedule |  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