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  

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