CLOSE
21 October 2021| Delhi Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. v. Satya Developers Pvt. Ltd | OMP (T) (COMM) 83 of 2021 and IA No. 10800 of 2021 | Vibhu Bakhru J| Delhi High Court | 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4785
Applying the Perkins rule to substitute the arbitrator, the Delhi High Court has reiterated that participation in the arbitral proceedings is not an “express agreement in writing” within the meaning of Section 12 (5) ACA. Following Bharat Broadband Network Limited v. United Telecoms Limited (2019) 5 SCC 755, Bakhru J ruled that in view of the unambiguous language of the proviso, a waiver under Section 12(5) ACA could not be inferred by the conduct of the parties. It must necessarily be by an express agreement in writing. He also said, it is well settled that where a statute provides a particular manner of doing a particular act, it must be done in that manner and no other.
The argument that the petitioner did not allege bias was also held “unmerited” as the question was of ineligibility attracted by the operation of law.
Read the judgment here.
Categories: Appointment of Arbitrators | Bharat Broadband | De Jure Ineligibility | Express Agreement in Writing | Failure or Impossibility to Act | Grounds for Challenge | Ineligibility of Arbitrator | Section 11 ACA | Section 12 (5) ACA | Section 12 ACA | Section 13 ACA | Section 14 ACA | Section 15 ACA | Seventh Schedule | Termination of Mandate and Substitution of Arbitrator | Unilateral Appointment of Arbitrator | Waiver