Author by : Aziz UmarB.A LL.B, Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia Islamia University, New Delhi
Abstract
The issue of the Unilateral Appointment of Arbitrators becomes the matter the sparks deliberations among the Indian legal community and especially among the stakeholders of Arbitration jurisprudence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV)1, (CORE II pronounce the inadmissibility of unilateral appointment of Arbitrators. This decision can revolutionize the Indian Arbitration Jurisprudence by balancing party autonomy and the principle of equal treatment of parties in Arbitral proceedings.
The Article highlights the recent Supreme Court Judgment under CORE II in light of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 by illustrating the statute key provision under Section 4, 12(5) and 18. The Article also illuminates on the need of balancing party autonomy with that of mandatory provisions and principle of natural Justice. The Article also sheds light on the evolution of the idea of fairness in the Arbitration proceedings through references to landmark judgments such as Voestalpine Schiener GmbH v. Delhi Metro Rail Cooperation Ltd., TRF Ltd v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd, Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd., with others. The Article concluded by providing a critical analysis of CORE II Judgements and its possible implications on the Arbitration Jurisprudence in India.
Keywords: Unilateral Appointment, Party Autonomy, Equal Treatment, Mandatory Provisions, Bias Doctrine, Public Private Contracts.
Comments