No Party To Arbitration Can Be Allowed To Appoint Arbitrator Unilaterally As The Same Would Defeat The Purpose Of Unbiased Adjudication: Delhi High Court
Parties to Arbitration cannot appoint the Arbitrator Unilaterally
No Party To Arbitration Can Be Allowed To Appoint Arbitrator Unilaterally As The Same Would Defeat The Purpose Of Unbiased Adjudication: Delhi High Court Parties to Arbitration cannot appoint the Arbitrator Unilaterally The Delhi High Court in its judgment delivered on October 26, reiterated that, No party to Arbitration can be allowed to appoint the Arbitrator unilaterally as the same...
No Party To Arbitration Can Be Allowed To Appoint Arbitrator Unilaterally As The Same Would Defeat The Purpose Of Unbiased Adjudication: Delhi High Court
Parties to Arbitration cannot appoint the Arbitrator Unilaterally
The Delhi High Court in its judgment delivered on October 26, reiterated that, No party to Arbitration can be allowed to appoint the Arbitrator unilaterally as the same would defeat the purpose of unbiased adjudication of dispute between the parties. [Shivanssh Infrastructure v. Army Welfare Housing Organisation, Arb. Petition 830 of 2021]
Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, while allowing the petition, appointed Retd. Justice BD Ahmed as the Sole Arbitrator and directed the same to be conducted under Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC).
Regarding the fees of arbitrator, the Court directed it to be in accordance with the Schedule of Fees prescribed under the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (Administrative Cost and Arbitrators Fees) Rules, 2018.
Reliance was placed on Supreme Court decisions in Perkins Eastman v. HSCC, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1517, followed by Coordinate benches of the Delhi High Court in Proddatur Cable TV Digi Services v. Siti Cable Network Limited, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 350 and VSK Technologies Private Limited and Others v. Delhi Jal Board, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3525.
"In cases where one party has a right to appoint a sole arbitrator, its choice will always have an element of exclusivity in determining or charting the course for dispute resolution. Naturally, the person who has an interest in the outcome or decision of the dispute must not have the power to appoint a sole arbitrator," the Top Court in Perkins Eastman, held.