Skip to main content

Sole arbitrator cannot be appointed by one party without explicit waiver from the other party

Cause Title : Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Company Ltd. Vs Amrapali Enterprises And Anr, EC 122 of 2022, Calcutta High Court

Date of Judgment/Order : 14/03/2023

Corum : Shekhar B. Saraf, J

Citied: 

  1. HRD Corporation vs GAIL 12 SCC 471, 2018
  2. TRF Limited vs Energo Engineering Projects Limited, 7 S.C.R. 409, 2017
  3. Perkins Eastman Architects DPC vs HSCC (India) Ltd.,17 S.C.R. 275, 2019
  4. Bharat Broadband Network Limited vs United Telecoms Limited reported 6 S.C.R. 97, 2019
  5. Yashovardhan Sinha and Ors. vs Satyatej Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. CHN (CAL) 305, 2022(3)
  6. B.K. Consortium Engineers Private Limited vs Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta, (2023 SCC OnLine Cal 124)
  7. Ram Kumar and Ors. vs Shriram Transport Finance Co. Limited, MANU/DE/4941/2022
  8. JV Engineering Associate, Civil Engineering Contractors vs General Manager, CORE, 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 4829
  9. Naresh Kanyalal Rajwani vs Kotak Mahindra Bank,2022 SCC OnLine Bom 6204
  10. Sunder Dass vs Ram Prakash, 1977 AIR 1201
  11. Hiralal Moolchand Doshi vs Barot Raman Lal Ranchhoddas,(1993) 2 SCC 458
  12. Sushil Kumar Mehta vs Gobind Ram Bohra, (1990) 1 SCC 193

Background

This application was filed by the applicant/lender seeking execution of an arbitral award passed by a sole arbitrator against the respondent/borrower.

The question before the court was whether an award passed ex-parte by a sole arbitrator appointed unilaterally by the lender is legally valid or not.

Judgment

The court looking into a catena judgements concluded that the appointment of the arbitrator, the entire arbitration process and consequently the award are bad in the eye of the law. 

The court declared that a unilaterally appointed arbitrator is de jure ineligible to perform his functions and that his mandate is automatically terminated under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act. Further, any prior agreement to do away with this ineligibility would be wiped out by the non-obstante clause contained in Section 12(5), and the same can be cured only through an express waiver and therefore the impugned award is unsustainable and non-est in the eyes of law and the present execution petition has no legs to stand on for the reasons that the award sought to be enforced is not a legal decree. 

The court further went on to highlight some basic point relating to the arbitrator’s relationship with the parties or counsel :-
  • arbitrators falling under Schedule VII of the The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are ineligible as they lack inherent jurisdiction. 
  • Similarly, persons appointed by persons falling under Schedule VII of the Act are ineligible
  • Finally, persons who are unilaterally appointed by one of the parties to the arbitration are also ineligible
  • It is a settled principle of law that compliance with Section 12(5) read with Schedule VII is sine qua non for any arbitral reference to gain recognition and validity before the Courts. An arbitral reference which begins with an illegal act vitiates the entire arbitral proceedings from its inception and the same cannot be validated at any later stage. Thus, it would be a logical inference to consider such arbitral proceedings as void ab initio.
  • Awards passed by a unilaterally appointed arbitrator are non- est in the eyes of law. While Section 47 of the CPC is not directly applicable, guidance has to be sought from the jurisprudence of the Apex Court vis-à-vis decrees passed while lacking inherent jurisdiction. Such decrees do not exist in the eyes of law and similarly awards passed while lacking inherent jurisdiction can be said to have never existed. Therefore, the parties would be free to re-agitate the matter.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

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

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

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more