Judicial Review Not Negated In Election Matters Where Level Playing Field Is Impaired By Violence: Supreme Court FIR Registration | Prospective Accused Has Locus Standi To Appeal Against Single Judge's Direction: Supreme Court Executing Deed Claiming Disputed Property Not 'False Document' Without Impersonation; Civil Disputes Can't Be Criminalised: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Partition Suit Can Be Transferred To High Court To Avoid Inconsistent Findings With Pending Testamentary Proceedings: Bombay High Court Upgraded Junior High Schools Lose Separate Legal Identity; Recruitment Under 1978 Rules Not Maintainable For Resulting Vacancies: Allahabad High Court Section 370 IPC | Consent Of Victim Is Irrelevant For Proving Trafficking; High Court Sustains Conviction Despite Acquittal Under Section 370A(2) Section 307 IPC | Absence Of Bodily Injury Does Not Exclude Offence If Intention Or Knowledge Is Established From Surrounding Circumstances: Delhi High Court Income Tax Reopening | Assessing Officer Cannot Initiate Reassessment Based On Third-Party Allegations Without Establishing Direct Nexus With Assessee: Gujarat High Court Section 294 CrPC | Non-Examination Of Autopsy Doctor Not Fatal To Prosecution When Post-Mortem Report's Genuineness Is Undisputed: Karnataka High Court Section 25 Arms Act | Mere Custody Without Awareness Not An Offence, 'Conscious Possession' Essential: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Over Single Live Cartridge Section 20 Prevention Of Corruption Act | Statutory Presumption Cannot Be Triggered Without Proof Of Demand; Mere Recovery Insufficient: Himachal Pradesh High Court Article 227 Constitution of India | High Court Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Findings Of Tribunal Under Supervisory Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Mere Registration Of Will Does Not Dispense With Requirement To Prove Execution Under Section 68 Evidence Act: Madras High Court Insurance Policy Exclusion | Onus To Prove Suicide Can Be Discharged By Circumstantial Evidence And Unexplained Discrepancies In Medical Records: NCDRC Registration Act | Contested Decree Declaring Pre-Existing Rights By Adverse Possession Does Not Require Compulsory Registration Or Stamp Duty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 100 Patents Act | Government Empowered To Authorise Manufacture Of Patented Life-Saving Drugs For Non-Commercial Distribution To Patients: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Cost On Centre Over Botched Prisoner Repatriation Contempt Of Court | Bona Fide Efforts To Verify Credentials Preclude Finding Of 'Wilful Disobedience': Telangana High Court Financial Commissioner Cannot Remand Appointment Of Lambardar Without Finding Perversity In Collector’s Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Article 226 | High Court Cannot Act As Second Appellate Authority Over Transfer Orders; Judicial Review Permissible Only On Four Limited Grounds: Rajasthan High Court Drugs and Cosmetics Act | Prosecution Must Prove Possession And Lack Of Licence Through Independent Evidence; Failure Of Panch Witnesses Is Fatal: Telangana High Court Section 392 IPC | Appellate Courts Can Reduce Sentence To Period Already Undergone Considering Protracted Litigation And Lack Of Criminal Antecedents: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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

07 May 2024 2:49 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