• Advertise
  • Membership
  • Sign in
Legal Era
X
Sign in
  • Home
  • News
    +
    • From the Courts
    • Policy & Law
    • Supreme Court (India)
    • High Court (India)
    • TAX Updates
    • MARKET WATCH
    • Deal Street
    • Global Insights
    • IBC Cases
    • Hires & Moves
    • IP News
    • Competition Verdict
  • Articles
    +
    • ABOUT THE LAW
    • AWARDS & ACCOLADES
    • Aerospace
    • Agriculture
    • Alternate Dispute Resolution
    • Banking and Finance
    • Bankruptcy
    • Book Review
    • Bribery & Corruption
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Competition Law
    • Conference Reports
    • Consumer Products
    • Corporate Governance
    • Corporate Law
    • Covid-19
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Protection
    • Defence
    • E-commerce
    • Employment Law
    • Energy and Natural Resources
    • Entertainment and Sports Law
    • Environmental Law
    • FDI
    • Food and Beverage
    • Health Care
    • IBC Diaries
    • Insurance Law
    • Intellectual Property
    • International Law
    • Labour Laws
    • Litigation
    • Litigation Funding
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • Privacy
    • Private Equity
    • Project Finance
    • Real Estate
    • Risk and Compliance
    • Technology Media and Telecom
    • Tributes
    • Zoom In
    • Take On Board
    • In Focus
    • Law & Policy and Regulation
    • IP & Tech Era
    • Viewpoint
    • Arbitration & Mediation
    • Tax
    • Student Corner
  • Interviews
  • Law Firms
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Events
  • News
    • From the Courts
    • Policy & Law
    • Supreme Court (India)
    • High Court (India)
    • TAX Updates
    • MARKET WATCH
    • Deal Street
    • Global Insights
    • IBC Cases
    • Hires & Moves
    • IP News
    • Competition Verdict
  • Articles
    • ABOUT THE LAW
    • AWARDS & ACCOLADES
    • Aerospace
    • Agriculture
    • Alternate Dispute Resolution
    • Banking and Finance
    • Bankruptcy
    • Book Review
    • Bribery & Corruption
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Competition Law
    • Conference Reports
    • Consumer Products
    • Corporate Governance
    • Corporate Law
    • Covid-19
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Protection
    • Defence
    • E-commerce
    • Employment Law
    • Energy and Natural Resources
    • Entertainment and Sports Law
    • Environmental Law
    • FDI
    • Food and Beverage
    • Health Care
    • IBC Diaries
    • Insurance Law
    • Intellectual Property
    • International Law
    • Labour Laws
    • Litigation
    • Litigation Funding
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • Privacy
    • Private Equity
    • Project Finance
    • Real Estate
    • Risk and Compliance
    • Technology Media and Telecom
    • Tributes
    • Zoom In
    • Take On Board
    • In Focus
    • Law & Policy and Regulation
    • IP & Tech Era
    • Viewpoint
    • Arbitration & Mediation
    • Tax
    • Student Corner
  • Interviews
  • Law Firms
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Events

Top Stories

HomeNewsFrom the Courts
15 Nov 2021 4:00 AM GMT

No Party To Arbitration Can Be Allowed To Appoint Arbitrator Unilaterally As The Same Would Defeat The Purpose Of Unbiased Adjudication: Delhi High Court

By Legal Era
Arbitrator

No Party To Arbitration Can Be Allowed To Appoint Arbitrator Unilaterally As The Same Would Defeat The Purpose Of Unbiased Adjudication: Delhi High Court

Parties to Arbitration cannot appoint the Arbitrator Unilaterally

The Delhi High Court in its judgment delivered on October 26, reiterated that, No party to Arbitration can be allowed to appoint the Arbitrator unilaterally as the same would defeat the purpose of unbiased adjudication of dispute between the parties. [Shivanssh Infrastructure v. Army Welfare Housing Organisation, Arb. Petition 830 of 2021]

Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, while allowing the petition, appointed Retd. Justice BD Ahmed as the Sole Arbitrator and directed the same to be conducted under Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC).

Regarding the fees of arbitrator, the Court directed it to be in accordance with the Schedule of Fees prescribed under the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (Administrative Cost and Arbitrators Fees) Rules, 2018.

Reliance was placed on Supreme Court decisions in Perkins Eastman v. HSCC, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1517, followed by Coordinate benches of the Delhi High Court in Proddatur Cable TV Digi Services v. Siti Cable Network Limited, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 350 and VSK Technologies Private Limited and Others v. Delhi Jal Board, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3525.

"In cases where one party has a right to appoint a sole arbitrator, its choice will always have an element of exclusivity in determining or charting the course for dispute resolution. Naturally, the person who has an interest in the outcome or decision of the dispute must not have the power to appoint a sole arbitrator," the Top Court in Perkins Eastman, held.

Click to download here Full Judgment

TAGS:
  • Arbitration 
  • Appointment of Arbitrator 
  • Unilateral Appointment 
Next Story
Similar Posts
See More
Trending Now
Recommended Articles
  • News
  • From the Courts
  • Supreme Court (India)
  • High Court (India)
  • Global Insights
  • Deal Street
  • Hires & Moves
  • Articles
  • Zoom In
  • Take On Board
  • In Focus
  • Law & Policy
  • IP & Tech Era
  • Viewpoint
  • Arbitration & Mediation
  • Tax
  • Student Corner
  • Interviews
  • Law Firms
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Membership
  • Events
Follow Us
Subscribe Newsletter
  • © All rights reserved Legal Era-Legal Media Group
  • Who We Are
  • Careers
  • Advertise with Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
Powered by  Hocalwire
X
X