At the Stage of Framing Charge, Presumption Suffices; Suicide Note and Grave Suspicion Enough: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Charge Under Section 306 IPC 173 CrPC | Framing of Charge Marks End of Investigation—Complainant Cannot Reopen Probe Merely by Citing Police Lapses: Bombay High Court Recovery Alone Cannot Prove Guilt: Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Photos, Videos Must Go: Supreme Court Binds Warring Spouses to Clean Up Social Media in Matrimonial Settlement Standard for Bail Under Section 319 CrPC Is Higher Than Framing of Charge, But Short of Conviction: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Accused Summoned Mid-Trial State Cannot Arbitrarily Deny Subsidies to 'New Industrial Units' by Retrospectively Applying Expansion Caps: Supreme Court Companies Act | Offence Under Section 448 Is Covered Under Section 447: Supreme Court Bars Private Complaint Without SFIO Nod “See-To-It” Obligation Is Not A Guarantee Under Indian Law: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope Of Section 126 ICA In IBC Disputes Mere Employment of Litigant’s Relatives in Police or Court Doesn't Prove Judicial Bias: Supreme Court Sets Aside Transfer of Criminal Case Reserved Candidate Availing Relaxed Standards in Prelims Cannot Migrate to General Quota for Cadre Allocation: Supreme Court Mere Vesting Does Not Mean Possession: Supreme Court Rules ULC Proceedings Abated For Failure To Serve Mandatory Notice To Actual Occupants Contempt of Courts Act | Natural Justice in Administrative Action: Supreme Court Directs West Bengal Govt to Re-Adjudicate Teachers' Arrears Claims Live-In Relationship with Married Man Not a ‘Relationship in the Nature of Marriage’ Under Domestic Violence Act: Bombay High Court Applies Supreme Court Guidelines Income Tax Act | Substitution of Shares held as Stock-in-Trade upon Amalgamation constitutes Taxable Business Income if Commercially Realisable: Supreme Court Judges Cannot Enact Their Own Protocols During Bail Hearings: Supreme Court Sets Aside Sweeping Age Determination Directions In POCSO If There Is Knowledge That Injury Is Likely To Cause Death, But No Intention Falls Under Section 304 Part II:  Supreme Court High Court Ignored POCSO’s Statutory Rigour, Committed Grave Error in Granting Bail: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Gang-Rape Accused Section 22 HSA | Co-Heirs Have Statutory Right of Pre-Emption Even in Urban Property: Punjab & Haryana High Court 138 NI Act | Issuance of Separate Cheques Gives Rise to Independent Causes of Action, Even if Drawn for Same Underlying Transaction: Supreme Court

Delhi High Court Emphasizes the Need for Broad-Based Panels in Arbitration Appointments

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


 In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court highlighted the importance of broad-based panels in the appointment of arbitrators. The court, in its ruling delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sachin D, emphasized the significance of impartiality, independence, and counterbalancing of power in the arbitration process.

Referring to the principles laid down in the Voestalpine case, the court stressed that arbitration panels should consist of professionals from diverse backgrounds, including engineers from the private sector, legal experts, and individuals from other fields. This approach, according to the court, helps create a healthy arbitration environment and instills confidence in the parties involved.

The judgment further observed that restrictive panels that do not adhere to these principles are not in line with the objective of promoting fairness and justice in arbitration. The court noted that counterbalancing of power is achieved when both parties have the opportunity to nominate arbitrators, ensuring that the appointment process is free from any undue influence or bias.

The court expressed concerns about exclusive appointment powers that may impinge upon party autonomy. It held that appointment procedures lacking counterbalancing measures fail to establish an independent and impartial Arbitral Tribunal. Consequently, the court ruled that nominated arbitrators and the presiding arbitrator should be appointed, allowing the parties to freely raise their claims before the Arbitral Tribunal.

While the judgment focused on the appointment procedure, it left the merits of substantive disputes open for further consideration. The ruling serves as a significant reminder of the need to uphold fairness and transparency in arbitration proceedings.

Highlighting the relevance of the judgment, the court stated in its ruling, "Panel must be broad-based and instill confidence in parties. Restrictive panels not in conformance with principles." [Para 32]

This decision has attracted attention from the legal community and is expected to have implications for future arbitration proceedings. It reinforces the importance of broad-based panels and the principles of impartiality and independence in ensuring a just and equitable arbitration process.

High court remarked, "The appointment procedure must strive to create a healthy arbitration environment by having a broad-based panel, including engineers from the private sector, legal professionals, and individuals from other fields." [Para 24]

The judgment referred to several cases, including SMS Ltd. Vs. Rail Vikas Nigam Limited and L&T Hydrocarbon Engineering Limited Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, to support its reasoning. It provided a comprehensive analysis of the appointment procedure and cited the principles established in previous judgments to reinforce its stance.

 Date of Decision: July 10, 2023

MARGO NETWORKS PVT LTD & ANR.  vs RAILTEL CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD       

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Margo_Networks_Pvt_Ltd_Anr_vs_Railtel_Corporation_Of_India_10_July_2023_Del_HC.pdf"]

Latest Legal News