Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers    |     Minor Injuries No Bar for Framing Charges Under Section 307 IPC if Intent to Kill is Present: Supreme Court    |     Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case    |     Allegations of Dowry Demand in FIR Found Vague and Driven by Civil Property Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry-Cruelty Case    |     Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute    |     Paternity Established Through SSC and Appointment Order, Legal Obligation to Maintain Unmarried Daughter: Andhra Pradesh High Court    |     No Appeal Shall Be Heard Without Disputed Tax Deposit: Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutionality of Section 96(b) of the Cantonment Act, 2006    |     Parties Must Choose Peace Over Litigation: Calcutta High Court Denies FIR Quashing in Family Dispute, Highlights Mediation Option    |     Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Recruitment of 1091 Assistant Professors and 67 Librarians In Punjab Due to Procedural Flaws    |     Res Judicata Bars Reconsideration of Adoption Validity in Second Round of Litigation: Jammu & Kashmir High Court    |     Candidates who use a party’s symbol must be deemed members of that party: Kerala High Court Upholds Disqualification for Defection    |     Inconsistencies in Eyewitness Accounts and Lack of Forensic Certainty Lead to Acquittal: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case    |     Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Notices Under Section 148 Due to Invalid Sanction by JCIT    |     Summons Under PMLA for Further Investigation Does Not Infringe Right Against Self-Incrimination: Telangana HC    |     Termination During Probation Is Lawful if Concealment of Criminal Case Is Proven: Allahabad HC    |     Disproportionate Fine Cannot Be Imposed for Recovery of 1 Liter of Country-made Liquor: Patna High Court    |     Prosecution failed to prove identity of remains and establish murder beyond reasonable doubt: Orissa High Court Acquit Ex-Husband    |     Despite 12 Injuries on the Victim, No Intention to Kill Found: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 304 Part-II IPC    |     Governor’s sanction suffers from non-application of mind: Karnataka High Court Stays Governor’s Sanction for Investigation Against CM Siddaramaiah    |    

Arbitration Law: Arbitrators Has To Disclose Potential Conflicts Of Interest: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a groundbreaking decision, the Supreme Court of India has issued a ruling that emphasizes the crucial duty of arbitrators to disclose potential conflicts of interest. The judgment, delivered on October 19, 2023, by a bench comprising Hon'ble Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Hon'ble Justice Aravind Kumar, addresses critical aspects of arbitration proceedings in India.

The judgment delves into the interpretation and application of various sections of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, shedding light on the independence and impartiality of arbitrators. In a significant observation, the Court stated, "Arbitrators must meticulously adhere to their duty of disclosure, ensuring transparency and fairness in the arbitration process."

The ruling also draws parallels with international standards, citing the IBA Guidelines (International Bar Association Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration) as a reference point for arbitrators' conduct. The Court noted, "The incorporation of IBA Guidelines underscores the importance of aligning Indian arbitration practices with global best practices."

One of the key highlights of the judgment is its comparison with the UK Supreme Court decision in Halliburton Company v Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd, 2021. The Court remarked, "The Halliburton decision serves as a guiding precedent, aligning the Indian arbitration landscape with international jurisprudence."

The judgment explores the statutory and non-statutory grounds for challenging arbitrators, providing clarity on when and how these grounds can be invoked. It underscores the significance of a robust and impartial arbitration process, stating, "The integrity of arbitration hinges on arbitrators' unwavering commitment to impartiality."

The decision also references various cases, including M/s. Voestalpine Schienen GMBH v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., HRD, Bharat Broad Band, ONGC, and National Highways Authority of India & Ors. vs. Gayatri Jhansi Roadways Limited & Ors., to illustrate its legal reasoning.

This landmark ruling is expected to have far-reaching implications for arbitration in India, reinforcing the importance of transparency and fairness in dispute resolution. It sends a strong message to arbitrators to uphold their duty of disclosure, ultimately enhancing the credibility and effectiveness of arbitration proceedings in the country.

Date of Decision: 19 October 2023

CHENNAI METRO RAIL LIMITED ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING    vs M/S TRANSTONNELSTROY AFCONS (JV) & ANR.     

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/19-Oct-2023-Chennai_Metro_Rail.pdf"]

Similar News