Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal

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