{"id":297078,"date":"2023-07-18T15:00:25","date_gmt":"2023-07-18T09:30:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=297078"},"modified":"2023-07-27T10:33:48","modified_gmt":"2023-07-27T05:03:48","slug":"nomination-of-arbitrator-by-ineligible-persons-sc-defers-hearing-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/18\/nomination-of-arbitrator-by-ineligible-persons-sc-defers-hearing-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Nomination of arbitrator by ineligible persons: SC defers hearing as Centre considers Reforms to Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/b> While hearing two references made to the larger Bench, wherein the correctness of the Central Organisation for Railway Electrification<\/i> v. ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV)<\/i>, (2020) 14 SCC 712<\/a> (‘ECI-SPIC’) was called in question and the preliminary issue that whether a person who is ineligible to be appointed as arbitrator, can nominate an arbitrator, was to be dealt with, the five Judge Bench comprising of Chief Justice of India Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Hrishikesh Roy, PS Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal and Manoj Misra, JJ., deferred the matter for a period of two months i.e., the matter was listed for hearing on 13-09-2023.<\/p>\n

Background<\/b><\/p>\n

In the ECI-SPIC (supra) the dispute arose between the Central Organisation for Railway Electrification (‘CORE’) and ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (Joint Venture) (‘ECI’) when the ECI did not complete the work within the prescribed period under the Contract, subsequently, the Contract was terminated by the CORE as per Clause 62 of the General Conditions of the Contract (‘GCC’). Aggrieved by the termination of Contract, the ECI filed a petition before the Allahabad High Court, which was dismissed vide Order dated 28-11-2017 and the High Court directed the ECI to avail the alternative remedy by invoking the arbitration clause. Accordingly, the ECI requested the CORE for appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal for resolving the disputes between the parties and settle the claims value of Rs.73.35 crores. The CORE had sent two lists comprising of Railway Electrification Officers of JA Grade and four retired Railway officers, respectively, calling upon the ECI to select any two arbitrators for the constitution of tribunal. However, the ECI did not send any reply and filed an application before the High court under Section 11<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (‘the Act’) seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator.<\/p>\n

The High Court vide order dated 03-01-2019, rejected the argument of the ECI- that the arbitrator is to be appointed as per GCC 64 (3)(a)(ii) and 64 (3)(b) of the Contract, and appointed Justice Rajesh Dayal Khare a retired judge of the Allahabad High Court as the sole arbitrator for resolving the dispute between the parties. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the ECI had preferred a Special Leave Petition to appeal before the Court.<\/p>\n

The Court had rejected the contention of ECI the that when the General Manager of the CORE himself being ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator under Section 12(5) read with Schedule VII of the Act, the General Manager cannot nominate any of the persons to be arbitrator and held that the General Manager was eligible to appoint an arbitrator. In ECI-SPIC (supra), the Court had rejected the applicability of TRF Ltd.<\/i> v. Energo Engg. Projects Ltd.<\/i>, (2017) 8 SCC 377<\/a>, (‘TRF Limited’) wherein it was held “that that once the arbitrator has become ineligible by operation of law, he cannot nominate another as an arbitrator<\/i>.” A similar view as TRF Limited was taken by the Court previously in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC<\/i> v. HSCC (India) Ltd.<\/i>, (2020) 20 SCC 760<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Later, in Union of India<\/i> v. Tantia Constructions Limited<\/i>, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 271<\/a>, (‘Tantia’) the Bench disagreed with the view taken in ECI-SPIC (supra). It was stated that “once the appointing authority itself is incapacitated from referring the matter to arbitration, it does not follow that notwithstanding this, yet appointments may be valid depending on the facts of the case.”<\/i> Therefore, the Bench had requested the then Chief Justice to constitute a larger Bench to look into the correctness of the ECI-SPIC (supra).<\/p>\n

In JSW Steel Ltd.<\/i> v. South Western Railway<\/i>, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1973<\/a>, (‘JSW Steel’) it was noted that in Tantia (supra) the Court had expressed its disagreement with the ECI-SPIC and a request was placed before the then Chief Justice of India to constitute a larger Bench to look into the correctness of the said decision. Therefore, the Bench in JSW Steel had also called for the reference of the matter before the larger Bench.<\/p>\n

Court’s Order<\/b><\/p>\n

The Court noted that the Union Government had constituted an Expert Committee to consider the provisions of the Act and that the references made to the larger Bench would fall within the broad scope of the Expert Committee. Therefore, the Court directed that the hearing of the two references to the Larger Bench be deferred by a period of two months and that the Court shall be apprised on the next date i.e., 13-09-2023 of the progress which has been made following the Constitution of the Expert Committee.<\/p>\n

[Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 855<\/a>, Order Dated: 12-07-2023<\/span>]<\/p>\n

Buy Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996   HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"arbitration<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Two Benches of the Supreme Court had expressed their disagreement with the view taken in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV), therefore, the matter was referred to larger Bench.<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":297096,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,38282],"tags":[59437,6111,40741,59439,59438,33453,44635,59440,5363],"class_list":["post-297078","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-decisions-of-the-constitution-benches-of-the-supreme-court","tag-another-arbitrator","tag-appointment","tag-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996","tag-hearing-deferred","tag-ineligible-arbitrator","tag-nomination","tag-sc","tag-september","tag-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"\nNomination of arbitrator by ineligible persons? SC defers hearing | SCC Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"SC defers hearing of question that whether an ineligible person can nominate arbitrator, as Centre considers Reforms to Act of 1996\" \/>\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\/2023\/07\/18\/nomination-of-arbitrator-by-ineligible-persons-sc-defers-hearing-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Nomination of arbitrator by ineligible persons: SC defers hearing as Centre considers Reforms to Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"SC defers hearing of question that whether an ineligible person can nominate arbitrator, as Centre considers Reforms to Act of 1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/18\/nomination-of-arbitrator-by-ineligible-persons-sc-defers-hearing-legal-news\/\" \/>\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=\"2023-07-18T09:30:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-07-27T05:03:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/nomination-of-arbitrator-by-ineligible-persons.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Nomination of arbitrator by ineligible persons: SC defers hearing as Centre considers Reforms to Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 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\/2023\/07\/18\/nomination-of-arbitrator-by-ineligible-persons-sc-defers-hearing-legal-news\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/18\/nomination-of-arbitrator-by-ineligible-persons-sc-defers-hearing-legal-news\/\",\"name\":\"Nomination of arbitrator by ineligible persons? SC defers hearing | SCC Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/18\/nomination-of-arbitrator-by-ineligible-persons-sc-defers-hearing-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/18\/nomination-of-arbitrator-by-ineligible-persons-sc-defers-hearing-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/nomination-of-arbitrator-by-ineligible-persons.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-07-18T09:30:25+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-07-27T05:03:48+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"SC defers hearing of question that whether an ineligible person can nominate arbitrator, as Centre considers Reforms to Act of 1996\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/18\/nomination-of-arbitrator-by-ineligible-persons-sc-defers-hearing-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/18\/nomination-of-arbitrator-by-ineligible-persons-sc-defers-hearing-legal-news\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/18\/nomination-of-arbitrator-by-ineligible-persons-sc-defers-hearing-legal-news\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/nomination-of-arbitrator-by-ineligible-persons.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/nomination-of-arbitrator-by-ineligible-persons.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"nomination of arbitrator by ineligible persons\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/18\/nomination-of-arbitrator-by-ineligible-persons-sc-defers-hearing-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Nomination of arbitrator by ineligible persons: SC defers hearing as Centre considers Reforms to Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996\"}]},{\"@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\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Nomination of arbitrator by ineligible persons? SC defers hearing | SCC Blog","description":"SC defers hearing of question that whether an ineligible person can nominate arbitrator, as Centre considers Reforms to Act of 1996","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\/2023\/07\/18\/nomination-of-arbitrator-by-ineligible-persons-sc-defers-hearing-legal-news\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Nomination of arbitrator by ineligible persons: SC defers hearing as Centre considers Reforms to Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996","og_description":"SC defers hearing of question that whether an ineligible person can nominate arbitrator, as Centre considers Reforms to Act of 1996","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/18\/nomination-of-arbitrator-by-ineligible-persons-sc-defers-hearing-legal-news\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2023-07-18T09:30:25+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-07-27T05:03:48+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/nomination-of-arbitrator-by-ineligible-persons.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Nomination of arbitrator by ineligible persons: SC defers hearing as Centre considers Reforms to Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/18\/nomination-of-arbitrator-by-ineligible-persons-sc-defers-hearing-legal-news\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/18\/nomination-of-arbitrator-by-ineligible-persons-sc-defers-hearing-legal-news\/","name":"Nomination of arbitrator by ineligible persons? SC defers hearing | SCC Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/18\/nomination-of-arbitrator-by-ineligible-persons-sc-defers-hearing-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/18\/nomination-of-arbitrator-by-ineligible-persons-sc-defers-hearing-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/nomination-of-arbitrator-by-ineligible-persons.webp","datePublished":"2023-07-18T09:30:25+00:00","dateModified":"2023-07-27T05:03:48+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"SC defers hearing of question that whether an ineligible person can nominate arbitrator, as Centre considers Reforms to Act of 1996","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/18\/nomination-of-arbitrator-by-ineligible-persons-sc-defers-hearing-legal-news\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/18\/nomination-of-arbitrator-by-ineligible-persons-sc-defers-hearing-legal-news\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/18\/nomination-of-arbitrator-by-ineligible-persons-sc-defers-hearing-legal-news\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/nomination-of-arbitrator-by-ineligible-persons.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/nomination-of-arbitrator-by-ineligible-persons.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"nomination of arbitrator by ineligible persons"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/18\/nomination-of-arbitrator-by-ineligible-persons-sc-defers-hearing-legal-news\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Nomination of arbitrator by ineligible persons: SC defers hearing as Centre considers Reforms to Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996"}]},{"@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\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/nomination-of-arbitrator-by-ineligible-persons.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":334726,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/08\/unilateral-appointment-arbitrator-public-private-contracts-violate-article-14-supreme-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":297078,"position":0},"title":"Unilateral appointment clauses in public-private contracts violative of Article 14 of Constitution; Arbitrator\u2019s selection from PSUs panel not a mandate: SC","author":"Editor","date":"November 8, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not prohibit Public Sector Undertakings from empanelling potential arbitrators, however, an arbitration clause cannot mandate the other party to select its arbitrator from the panel curated by PSUs.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Unilateral Appointment of Arbitrator","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/Unilateral-Appointment-of-Arbitrator.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/Unilateral-Appointment-of-Arbitrator.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/Unilateral-Appointment-of-Arbitrator.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/Unilateral-Appointment-of-Arbitrator.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":293883,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/06\/contract-in-name-of-president-not-immune-against-conflict-of-interest-of-parties-supreme-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":297078,"position":1},"title":"Whether contracts entered in name of President are immune from provisions protecting against conflict of interest of a party to contract? Supreme Court answers","author":"Apoorva","date":"June 6, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court refused to give effect to the appointment of an officer of the Ministry of Law and Justice as an arbitrator.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"contract entered in name of president","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/contract-entered-in-name-of-president.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/contract-entered-in-name-of-president.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/contract-entered-in-name-of-president.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/contract-entered-in-name-of-president.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":254584,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/23\/arbitration-and-conciliation-act-3\/","url_meta":{"origin":297078,"position":2},"title":"Chairman of party who entered into arbitration, can he be categorised as eligible under Arbitration and Conciliation Act? SC highlights impartiality of arbitrators as a key element while pronouncing this ruling","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 23, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: Expressing on the aspect of independence and impartiality of the arbitrators, Division Bench of M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., held that, Though the word 'Chairman' is not mentioned explicitly in Seventh Schedule, at the same time, it would fall under clause 1, clause 2, clause 5, and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","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\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":294793,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/16\/delhi-hc-sets-aside-arbitral-award-by-arbitrator-de-jure-inability-legal-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":297078,"position":3},"title":"Delhi High Court sets aside arbitral award passed by Arbitrator having de jure inability to pass the award","author":"Arunima","date":"June 16, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The ineligibility of an Arbitrator goes to the root of his jurisdiction and the Arbitral Award cannot be considered as valid.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":286933,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/18\/unilateral-appointment-of-arbitrator-whether-absolute-prohibition-contrary-to-the-scheme-of-the-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":297078,"position":4},"title":"Unilateral Appointment of Arbitrator \u2014 Whether Absolute Prohibition Contrary to the Scheme of the Act?","author":"Editor","date":"March 18, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"by Prashant Tripathi\u2020 and Sanjeev Singh\u2020\u2020","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-775.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-775.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-775.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-775.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":308034,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/29\/nomination-of-arbitrator-involved-in-dispute-previously-in-capacity-of-judge-whether-eligible-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":297078,"position":5},"title":"Whether a Judge who has passed an Order previously is eligible to be nominated as an Arbitrator? – Gujarat HC answers","author":"Editor","date":"November 29, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"A mere fact that the nominated Arbitrator had been a member of the Bench of the Court, which had decided the validity of the interim order passed by the then Arbitral Tribunal, it cannot be held that the \u201cArbitrator has previous involvement in the case\u201d.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"gujarat high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/gujarat-high-court-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/gujarat-high-court-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/gujarat-high-court-1.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/gujarat-high-court-1.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/297078","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\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=297078"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/297078\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/297096"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=297078"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=297078"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=297078"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}