arbitrator
LinkedIn
Facebook
Twitter
Whatsapp
Telegram
Copy link

The Delhi High Court in a recent judgment held that courts have now consistently proceeded to appoint an independent arbitrator in situations where the arbitration clause is in conflict with the amended Arbitration Act. However, the unilateral right of a party to appoint an arbitrator has not been done away with.

In the Kadimi International v Emaar MGF Land Ltd case, a petition under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was filed by Kadimi before Delhi High Court challenging appointment of R S Baswana, District and Sessions Judge (retired) as the sole arbitrator, and for seeking appointment of an independent arbitrator, in terms of clause 35 of the Space Buyer Agreement. It was submitted that the conduct of Emaar in unilaterally appointing an arbitrator, despite Kadimi’s categorical objections in its letter, raises justifiable doubts over the neutrality, independence and impartiality of the arbitrator.

You must be a subscribersubscribersubscribersubscriber to read this content, please subscribesubscribesubscribesubscribe today.

For group subscribers, please click here to access.
Interested in group subscription? Please contact us.

你需要登录去解锁本文内容。欢迎注册账号。如果想阅读月刊所有文章,欢迎成为我们的订阅会员成为我们的订阅会员

已有集团订阅,可点击此处继续浏览。
如对集团订阅感兴趣,请联络我们

The dispute digest is compiled by Bhasin & Co, a corporate law firm based in New Delhi. The authors can be contacted at lbhasin@bhasinco.in. Readers should not act on the basis of this information without seeking professional legal advice.

LinkedIn
Facebook
Twitter
Whatsapp
Telegram
Copy link