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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more