Skip to main content

Court can substitute arbitrator

If an arbitrator nominated by the contesting parties withdraws from the proceedings, the court can select a substitute arbitrator of its own choice. "It is the court's duty to give effect to the policy of law, that is to promote efficacy of arbitration," the Supreme Court has stated in its judgment, Shailesh vs Mohan. In this case, the parties selected a retired judge of the Supreme Court from a panel of names but she resigned midway.

The parties could not agree on a new name and the matter went back to the Bombay high court. It substituted one of its retired judges in her place. This was opposed by one of the parties, which argued that once the arbitrator withdraws, the agreement ended and the court could not name another. Rejecting this argument, the Supreme Court stated that under Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, when the mandate of an arbitrator terminates, a substitute arbitrator "shall" be appointed. Arbitration must go on.


For example, in a family dispute, the warring members might name the grand uncle as the only arbitrator as they repose faith in him. If he is not available, quits or dies, arbitration does not end; the court can nominate another person of its choice. If the parties specifically prohibit a substitute arbitrator, a new person cannot enter. Otherwise, the court has the power to name a new arbitrator, the judgment emphasised.

 Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/court-can-substitute-arbitrator-115110100751_1.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more