Skip to main content

Prior award by the same arbitrator between the same parties cannot be a ground for bias

Hon’ble supreme court of India in a recent judgment delivered on 31st August 2017 in a case between HRD Corporation (Marcus Oil and Chemical Division) and Gas Authority of India Limited (GAIL India Limited), 2017 SCC online SC 1024, dealt with the challenge filed under S.12 of the Act claiming that appointment of two Arbitrators of the three-member panel Justice Mr. Lahoti and Justice Mr. Doabia are hit by Schedule V& Schedule VII of the amended Act. After the 2016 amendment Act, a dichotomy is made by the Act between persons who become “ineligible” to be appointed as Arbitrators and persons about whom justifiable doubts exist as to their independence or impartiality. Justice Lahoti’s appointment is challenged on the ground that the Arbitrator has been an adviser to GAIL in another unconnected matter. In fact, Justice Mr. Lahoti had given a legal opinion in another unconnected matter. Hence Court concluded that such an isolated issue of the legal opinion given in an unconnected matter cannot be brought into the ambit of “business relationship” mentioned in VIIth Schedule and hence the said contention was rejected.

Relating to the appointment of Justice Mr. Daobia the contention was that his appointment is hit by item 16 of the said Schedule VII of the Act. The reason for such a contention was that Mr. Daobia was part of a tribunal which decided the same issue arising out of the same contract between the same parties for an earlier period. As per the above-said item 16, a person who had an earlier involvement in the case, cannot be appointed as an Arbitrator. It was also argued that the said item 16 of the VIIth Schedule should be read with items 22 and 24th of Vth Schedule. The said disqualification under items 22nd and 24th of Vth Schedule is not absolute and cannot be disqualified even if the same party appointed the same person either 2 or more times and not proved to be biased. Hence the court held that the prior award given between the same parties by the same Arbitrator cannot be a disqualification under Schedule V& VII of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996.


Article referred: http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/Prior-award-by-the-same-arbitrator-between-the-same-parties-cannot-be-a-ground-for-bias-8476.asp?utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=news&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_September

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil
3 comments
Read more