{"id":208654,"date":"2019-01-23T18:15:41","date_gmt":"2019-01-23T12:45:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=208654"},"modified":"2019-01-24T13:55:05","modified_gmt":"2019-01-24T08:25:05","slug":"bom-hc-under-s-34-of-ac-act-court-has-to-see-whether-the-view-taken-by-arbitrator-is-a-judicially-possible-view","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/23\/bom-hc-under-s-34-of-ac-act-court-has-to-see-whether-the-view-taken-by-arbitrator-is-a-judicially-possible-view\/","title":{"rendered":"Bom HC | Under S. 34 of A&#038;C Act, Court has to see whether the view taken by Arbitrator is a judicially possible view"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Bombay High Court: <\/strong>The Bench of S.C. Gupte, J. while addressing an arbitration petition challenging the award passed by a sole arbitrator, noted the points of evidence asserted by the sole arbitrator and dismissed the petition.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In the present petition, the crux of the issue involved an agreement for manufacturing of the petitioner\u2019s liquor products. The particular agreement was between the petitioner (who was the respondent to the reference) and the respondent (who was the claimant before the arbitral forum) <em>inter alia <\/em>engaging services of respondent for manufacture, on a priority basis of various liquor products of the petitioner in the State of Maharashtra.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Respondent stated in his points of contentions that in a meeting held between the representatives of the parties, it was agreed that bottling charges would be increased by Rs 10 per case. Claimant had sent out an e-mail with a letter requesting the petitioner to confirm the minutes of the meeting held for which no response from the petitioner was received. Further, it was stated that though respondent did not receive any written communication from the petitioner, respondent, with consent from the petitioner, went on adjusting from jointly operated account payments towards bottling charges at the rate of Rs 40 per case.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Petitioner in his behalf placed that, a sum of Rs 40,46,165.87 was due and payable by the petitioner to the respondent after the payments adjusted. Further, for the said amount, it was agreed between the petitioner and the respondent that the petitioner would pay the same in four installments which never got fulfilled.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">A legal notice was sent to the petitioner regarding the above stated and thereafter present reference was filed.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Learned sole arbitrator while giving its award held that the petitioner had failed to pay the agreed amount and as a result, awarded a sum of Rs 64,08,685.82, comprising of the principal amount as stated above along with interest. The said award has been challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">While concluding the decision, the bench stated that the oral agreement was consistently acted upon by the parties for a long period of time. <strong>\u201cWhatever view the Court may take of an oral modification clause generally or in the particular case we are concerned with, the mandate of challenge to the court under Section 34 of the Act is to see whether the view taken by the arbitrator, even if it be on a question of law or its application to the facts of the case, is a possible view or view which a fair and judiciously minded person could well take.\u201d <\/strong>Therefore, the view taken by the arbitrator could well be said to be a possible view and supported by evidence. The view must pass muster under Section 34 of the Act.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Thus, the challenge to the impugned award had no merit and the petition was accordingly dismissed. [John Distilleries (P) Ltd. v. Brihan Maharashtra Sugar Syndicate Ltd., <a href=\"http:\/\/scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/MANV2NGl\"><b>2019 SCC OnLine Bom 67<\/b><\/a>,\u00a0dated 14-01-2019]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Bombay High Court: The Bench of S.C. Gupte, J. while addressing an arbitration petition challenging the award passed by a sole arbitrator, <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":74381,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[2998,3239,2521,33393,32304,31135],"class_list":["post-208654","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-Agreement","tag-consent","tag-Evidence","tag-minutes-of-meeting","tag-section-34-arbitration-and-conciliation-act","tag-sole-arbitrator"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Bom HC | Under S. 34 of A&amp;C Act, Court has to see whether the view taken by Arbitrator is a judicially possible view | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/23\/bom-hc-under-s-34-of-ac-act-court-has-to-see-whether-the-view-taken-by-arbitrator-is-a-judicially-possible-view\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bom HC | Under S. 34 of A&amp;C Act, Court has to see whether the view taken by Arbitrator is a judicially possible view\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Bombay High Court: The Bench of S.C. Gupte, J. while addressing an arbitration petition challenging the award passed by a sole arbitrator,\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/23\/bom-hc-under-s-34-of-ac-act-court-has-to-see-whether-the-view-taken-by-arbitrator-is-a-judicially-possible-view\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2019-01-23T12:45:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-24T08:25:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1331\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/23\/bom-hc-under-s-34-of-ac-act-court-has-to-see-whether-the-view-taken-by-arbitrator-is-a-judicially-possible-view\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/23\/bom-hc-under-s-34-of-ac-act-court-has-to-see-whether-the-view-taken-by-arbitrator-is-a-judicially-possible-view\/\",\"name\":\"Bom HC | Under S. 34 of A&C Act, Court has to see whether the view taken by Arbitrator is a judicially possible view | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/23\/bom-hc-under-s-34-of-ac-act-court-has-to-see-whether-the-view-taken-by-arbitrator-is-a-judicially-possible-view\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/23\/bom-hc-under-s-34-of-ac-act-court-has-to-see-whether-the-view-taken-by-arbitrator-is-a-judicially-possible-view\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-01-23T12:45:41+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-24T08:25:05+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/23\/bom-hc-under-s-34-of-ac-act-court-has-to-see-whether-the-view-taken-by-arbitrator-is-a-judicially-possible-view\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/23\/bom-hc-under-s-34-of-ac-act-court-has-to-see-whether-the-view-taken-by-arbitrator-is-a-judicially-possible-view\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/23\/bom-hc-under-s-34-of-ac-act-court-has-to-see-whether-the-view-taken-by-arbitrator-is-a-judicially-possible-view\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg\",\"width\":1331,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/23\/bom-hc-under-s-34-of-ac-act-court-has-to-see-whether-the-view-taken-by-arbitrator-is-a-judicially-possible-view\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bom HC | Under S. 34 of A&#038;C Act, Court has to see whether the view taken by Arbitrator is a judicially possible view\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bom HC | Under S. 34 of A&C Act, Court has to see whether the view taken by Arbitrator is a judicially possible view | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/23\/bom-hc-under-s-34-of-ac-act-court-has-to-see-whether-the-view-taken-by-arbitrator-is-a-judicially-possible-view\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bom HC | Under S. 34 of A&C Act, Court has to see whether the view taken by Arbitrator is a judicially possible view","og_description":"Bombay High Court: The Bench of S.C. Gupte, J. while addressing an arbitration petition challenging the award passed by a sole arbitrator,","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/23\/bom-hc-under-s-34-of-ac-act-court-has-to-see-whether-the-view-taken-by-arbitrator-is-a-judicially-possible-view\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2019-01-23T12:45:41+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-24T08:25:05+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1331,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/23\/bom-hc-under-s-34-of-ac-act-court-has-to-see-whether-the-view-taken-by-arbitrator-is-a-judicially-possible-view\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/23\/bom-hc-under-s-34-of-ac-act-court-has-to-see-whether-the-view-taken-by-arbitrator-is-a-judicially-possible-view\/","name":"Bom HC | Under S. 34 of A&C Act, Court has to see whether the view taken by Arbitrator is a judicially possible view | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/23\/bom-hc-under-s-34-of-ac-act-court-has-to-see-whether-the-view-taken-by-arbitrator-is-a-judicially-possible-view\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/23\/bom-hc-under-s-34-of-ac-act-court-has-to-see-whether-the-view-taken-by-arbitrator-is-a-judicially-possible-view\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg","datePublished":"2019-01-23T12:45:41+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-24T08:25:05+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/23\/bom-hc-under-s-34-of-ac-act-court-has-to-see-whether-the-view-taken-by-arbitrator-is-a-judicially-possible-view\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/23\/bom-hc-under-s-34-of-ac-act-court-has-to-see-whether-the-view-taken-by-arbitrator-is-a-judicially-possible-view\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/23\/bom-hc-under-s-34-of-ac-act-court-has-to-see-whether-the-view-taken-by-arbitrator-is-a-judicially-possible-view\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg","width":1331,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/23\/bom-hc-under-s-34-of-ac-act-court-has-to-see-whether-the-view-taken-by-arbitrator-is-a-judicially-possible-view\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bom HC | Under S. 34 of A&#038;C Act, Court has to see whether the view taken by Arbitrator is a judicially possible view"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":242186,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/13\/cal-hc-s-116-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996-reiterating-independence-and-impartiality-of-the-arbitrator-court-appoints-former-justice-of-the-present-court-to-preside-over-as-the-sole-arbi\/","url_meta":{"origin":208654,"position":0},"title":"Cal HC | [S.11(6) Arbitration &#038; Conciliation Act, 1996] Reiterating independence and impartiality of the Arbitrator, Court appoints former justice of the present court to preside over as the sole arbitrator","author":"Editor","date":"January 13, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Calcutta High Court: Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J., while allowing the present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 appointed former judge of the present High Court, Sahidullah Munshi as the sole arbitrator in the present matter. In the present application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":272655,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/30\/calcutta-high-court-illegal-procedure-for-appointment-of-arbitrator-does-not-render-arbitration-agreement-illegal-in-toto-guiding-principles-for-appointment-of-arbitrator-reiterated\/","url_meta":{"origin":208654,"position":1},"title":"Calcutta High Court | Illegal procedure for appointment of Arbitrator does not render Arbitration agreement illegal in toto; Guiding Principles for Appointment of Arbitrator reiterated","author":"Editor","date":"August 30, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Calcutta High Court: In a petition challenging the appointment of sole Arbitrator by the respondent, Shekhar B. Saraf, J., held that merely because an arbitration clause provides for an illegal method of appointment of arbitrator, it does not come to an end and after removing the illegal portion\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Calcutta High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/calcutta_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/calcutta_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/calcutta_high_court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/calcutta_high_court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/calcutta_high_court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":250101,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/21\/appointment-of-arbitrator\/","url_meta":{"origin":208654,"position":2},"title":"Del HC | Can sole arbitrator&#8217;s appointment be disputed if he was consultant\/advisor to one of the parties to dispute? Court examines","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"June 21, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: J.R. Midha, J., in view of serious doubts on the independence of sole arbitrator as named in the arbitration agreement, appointed another independent arbitrator. Petitioner sought appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Parties had agreed for reference of disputes to\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Alternate Dispute Resolution&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Alternate Dispute Resolution","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/alternate_dispute_resolution\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":367145,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/19\/delhi-hc-on-validity-of-unilateral-appointment-of-sole-arbitrator\/","url_meta":{"origin":208654,"position":3},"title":"&#8216;Letter consenting to unilateral appointment of sole arbitrator doesn&#8217;t constitute waiver under Sec. 12 (5) of Arbitration Act&#8217;: Delhi HC","author":"Editor","date":"November 19, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cAt best, the letter consenting to appointment of sole arbitrator, was a conditional acceptance of the appointment of a sole arbitrator. The condition being that the sole arbitrator would adjudicate the disputes between the petitioner and both the respondents.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"unilateral appointment of sole arbitrator","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/unilateral-appointment-of-sole-arbitrator.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/unilateral-appointment-of-sole-arbitrator.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/unilateral-appointment-of-sole-arbitrator.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/unilateral-appointment-of-sole-arbitrator.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":203367,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/10\/termination-of-agreement-does-not-automatically-terminate-the-arbitration-clause-contained-in-such-agreement\/","url_meta":{"origin":208654,"position":4},"title":"Termination of agreement does not automatically terminate the arbitration clause contained in such agreement","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 10, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Karnataka High Court: A Single judge bench comprising of Dinesh Maheshwari, J. while hearing a civil writ petition for appointment of arbitrator noted that even after termination of an agreement entered into between the parties, the arbitration agreement survives. Brief background of the case was that the respondent had entered\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":293987,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/06\/delhi-court-sets-aside-90-lakh-arbitral-award-bmw-india-financial-services\/","url_meta":{"origin":208654,"position":5},"title":"Delhi Court sets aside &#8377;90 lakh award granted in favour of BMW India Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.","author":"Editor","date":"June 6, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Unilateral Appointment of the Sole Arbitrator vitiates the proceedings of Arbitration.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Patiala House Courts","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-774.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-774.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-774.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-774.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/208654","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=208654"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/208654\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/74381"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=208654"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=208654"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=208654"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}