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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more