In Bipromasz Bipron Trading SA v Bharat Electronics Limited, a single judge of the Supreme Court held that a court has the power to appoint an arbitrator other than the arbitrator named in a contract if the facts tend to indicate that the named arbitrator may be partial to one of the parties.
However, the court cautioned that deviating from the rule to refer disputes to the named arbitrator would be resorted to only for valid reasons, such as a reasonable apprehension that the arbitrator is unlikely to act independently or impartially, or if the named arbitrator is not available.
Bipromasz Bipron, a Polish company, received a purchase order from Bharat Electronics (BEL). According to the terms and conditions of the order, all disputes had to be referred to the chairman and managing director of BEL or his nominee.
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。
The update of court judgments is compiled by Bhasin & Co, Advocates, a corporate law firm based in New Delhi. The authors can be contacted at lbhasin@bhasinco.in or lbhasin@gmail.com. Readers should not act on the basis of this information without seeking professional legal advice.
