{"id":392757,"date":"2026-08-07T18:30:46","date_gmt":"2026-08-07T13:00:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=392757"},"modified":"2026-08-07T17:43:55","modified_gmt":"2026-08-07T12:13:55","slug":"bombay-hc-unilateral-arbitrator-appointments-pre-2015-amendment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/07\/bombay-hc-unilateral-arbitrator-appointments-pre-2015-amendment\/","title":{"rendered":"Bombay High Court: Contractually authorised unilateral appointment of arbitrator not void ab initio in pre-Section 12(5) arbitrations"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Bombay High Court:<\/span> In connected execution applications challenging the legality of awards passed by a unilaterally appointed arbitrator in arbitrations invoked before Section 12(5)<\/a>, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> came into force on 23 October 2015, the Single Judge Bench of Jitendra Jain, J., held that,<\/p>\n

“Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator prior to 23 October 2015 wherein the arbitration clause provides for a named arbitrator or by designation or authorising appointment of an arbitrator by one of the party will not be without jurisdiction and consequently, the proceedings arising therefrom would not be void ab initio except in cases, where there is no contractual clause in the agreement naming a particular arbitrator or conferring on one of the party the right to unilateral appointment of an arbitrator but the appointment is made by one of the party in the absence of consent of other party. In the latter case, it will be void.”<\/p>\n

The Court clarified that appointments made unilaterally without contractual authority or consent would be void, subject to the Court’s clarification regarding unsuccessful prior challenges.<\/p>\n

Background<\/p>\n

The present execution applications arose in the backdrop of the controversy regarding the enforceability of arbitral awards arising from unilateral appointments made before 23 October 2015. Prior to 23 October 2015, arbitration agreements commonly permitted one party to appoint an arbitrator, or authorised an officer or authority of one of the parties to make such appointment. Although such appointments were challenged on the ground of bias and lack of impartiality, those challenges were not accepted by the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

To address concerns regarding the independence and impartiality of arbitrators, the legislature amended the Act by introducing Section 12(5), along with the Fifth Schedule and Seventh Schedule, with effect from 23 October 2015. Section 12(5) rendered persons falling within the categories specified in the Seventh Schedule ineligible to be appointed as arbitrators, notwithstanding any prior agreement to the contrary, unless the parties expressly waived the provision in writing after disputes had arisen.<\/p>\n

Subsequently, in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airport Authority of India<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 7<\/a>, the Supreme Court held that where arbitration was invoked after 23 October 2015 in violation of Section 12(5), the appointment of the arbitrator would be void, and an arbitral award rendered pursuant to such appointment would not be executable. While arriving at this conclusion, the Supreme Court referred to Dharma Prathishthanam v. Madhok Construction (P) Ltd.<\/span>, (2005) 9 SCC 686<\/a>, which held that unilateral appointment without the consent of the other party is illegal. The Supreme Court also observed that what had earlier been implicit in the Act had been made explicit after the 2015 amendment by providing a statutory guarantee of equal treatment in the appointment of arbitrators.<\/p>\n

Following the decision in Bhadra International<\/span> case, judgment debtors in execution proceedings relating to awards arising from arbitrations invoked prior to 23 October 2015 contended that the decision also rendered such awards inexecutable on the ground that unilateral appointment of arbitrators was illegal. The decree holders, on the other hand, argued that the decision applied only to arbitrations invoked after the amendment came into force and that awards arising from arbitrations invoked before 23 October 2015 remained enforceable.<\/p>\n

It was in this background that the present execution applications came to be considered. The applicants sought enforcement of arbitral awards arising out of arbitrations invoked prior to 23 October 2015, contending that Section 12(5) was inapplicable. The respondents opposed execution by relying on certain observations in Bhadra International<\/span> case, arguing that the decision equally applied to arbitrations invoked before the amendment and, consequently, the awards were incapable of execution. In view of the importance of the questions involved, the Court appointed an amicus to assist in resolving the controversy.<\/p>\n

Issues<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n

    Whether unilateral appointment of arbitrator prior to 23 October 2015 is without jurisdiction, and consequently all proceedings arising therefrom would be void ab initio?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    If the answer to question (i) is in the affirmative, then whether the Executing Court can consider the effect of such unilateral appointment of arbitrator, when there is no challenge to the award passed by the arbitrator?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Also Read:<\/span> Del HC on invalidity of unilateral arbitrator appointment| SCC Times<\/a><\/p>\n

    Analysis, Findings and Decision<\/p>\n

    The Court stated that the issue which required consideration was whether unilateral appointment of an arbitrator prior to 23 October 2015 vitiates all proceedings arising therefrom.<\/p>\n

    Categories of unilateral appointment<\/p>\n

    At the outset, the Court opined that before answering the issue, it was important to understand the different facets of unilateral appointment, failing which there would be confusion regarding the applicability of various decisions. The Court identified three categories of unilateral appointment:<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. \n

      Where the arbitrator himself lacks independence or impartiality<\/span>, such as where an office-bearer of one of the parties to the arbitration agreement is appointed as the arbitrator.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    2. \n

      Where the arbitration agreement authorises one of the parties to appoint an arbitrator<\/span>, but the arbitrator so appointed is not connected with that party.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    3. \n

      Where the arbitration agreement neither names an arbitrator nor confers a unilateral right of appointment<\/span>, but one party nevertheless appoints an arbitrator without the consent of the other party.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      The Court further referred to the scheme of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a>, observing that Section 7 defines an arbitration agreement, Section 11 provides for appointment of arbitrators in accordance with the agreed procedure or, failing such procedure, by the Court, Section 12 provides the grounds and procedure for challenging an arbitrator, and Section 18 guarantees equality of treatment and full opportunity to each party.<\/p>\n

      Judicial position on unilateral appointments before 23 October 2015<\/p>\n

      The Court observed that, prior to 23 October 2015, despite the existence of Sections 7<\/a>, 11<\/a>, 12<\/a> and 18<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a>, the Supreme Court had consistently upheld unilateral appointments made in terms of the arbitration agreement, including where one party was authorised to appoint the arbitrator or where the agreement named the appointing authority. In this regard, the Court referred to Datar Switchgears Ltd. v. Tata Finance Ltd.<\/span>, <\/span>(2000) 8 SCC 151<\/a>, and ACE Pipeline Contracts (P) Ltd. v. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd.<\/span>, <\/span>(2007) 5 SCC 304<\/a>.<\/p>\n

      The Court further noted that in Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. v. Raja Transport (P) Ltd.<\/span>,<\/span> (2009) 8 SCC 520<\/a>, the Supreme Court had exhaustively considered the issue by examining Sections 11<\/a>, 12<\/a> and 18<\/a> of the 1996 Act<\/a> and upheld unilateral appointments made in accordance with the arbitration agreement. The Court observed that the only exception recognised therein was where the named arbitrator was an employee of a company, body or individual other than the State or its instrumentalities.<\/p>\n

      The Court observed that none of these decisions had been expressly overruled by Bhadra International case<\/span>. It held that accepting the judgment debtors’ contention would amount to holding that decisions rendered by Benches of co-equal strength stood impliedly overruled by Bhadra International<\/span>, which, according to the Court, could not be accepted.<\/p>\n

      The Court then referred to the Constitution Bench decision in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification (CORE) v. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV)<\/span>,<\/span> (2025) 4 SCC 641<\/a>, observing that it analysed the earlier decisions in Datar Switchgears<\/span>, ACE Pipeline<\/span>, and Indian Oil Corporation<\/span>, and acknowledged that, prior to the 2015 Amendment<\/span>, the Supreme Court had upheld unilateral appointments conferring an unfettered right on one party to appoint the sole arbitrator. The Court noted that although the Constitution Bench examined the entire legal framework relating to party autonomy, independence, impartiality, equality, bias, natural justice, unilateral appointments and the provisions of the 1996 Act both before and after the 2015 Amendment, it approved TRF Ltd. v. Energo Engg. Projects Ltd.<\/span>, <\/span>(2017) 8 SCC 377<\/a><\/span>, and Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd.<\/span>,<\/span> (2020) 20 SCC 760<\/a>, disagreed with Voestalpine Schienen GmbH v. DMRC<\/span>, <\/span>(2017) 4 SCC 665<\/a>, and made its decision prospective in relation to appointment from a panel in a three-member arbitral tribunal.<\/p>\n

      Accordingly, the Court noted that the Constitution Bench neither overruled nor disapproved the decisions governing unilateral appointments prior to 23 October 2015. According to the Court, those decisions continued to hold the field.<\/p>\n

      Whether Bhadra International<\/span> applies to pre-2015 appointments<\/p>\n

      The Court further held that Bhadra International<\/span> dealt with arbitration invoked after<\/span> the 2015 Amendment<\/span> and not with arbitrations invoked earlier. It observed that the decision must be read as a whole and not by isolating certain observations from their context. According to the Court, the observation in Bhadra International<\/span> that what was implicit prior to 2015 had been made explicit by the amendment did not mean that unilateral appointments made before 23 October 2015<\/span> became void. The Court held that such an interpretation would be contrary to the Constitution Bench decision in CORE<\/span> and would attribute to the Supreme Court something it had not stated.<\/p>\n

      The Court observed that Section 12(5) expressly introduced, with effect from 23 October 2015, the ineligibility of persons falling within the categories specified in the Seventh Schedule to act as arbitrators. The Court held that while the principles of impartiality, independence and equal treatment were reflected in the provisions of the 1996 Act even prior to the amendment, their existence did not, by itself, render appointments made before 23 October 2015 illegal or invalidate the arbitral proceedings.<\/p>\n

      The Court observed that a party apprehending bias or violation of the statutory scheme always had the remedy of challenging the appointment or the proceedings in accordance with law. Where such challenge failed, or was never raised, the party could not subsequently question the appointment during execution proceedings. The Court held that accepting the judgment debtors’ contention would amount to retrospectively attributing a statutory disqualification to arbitrators appointed before 23 October 2015, which was impermissible.<\/p>\n

      The Court further held that a party which did not challenge the appointment of an arbitrator prior to 23 October 2015 was deemed to have waived its right under Section 4<\/a> of the 1996 Act<\/a>. It observed that such a party, having participated in the arbitral proceedings and either not challenged the award or failed in such challenge, could not obstruct execution proceedings on the same ground.<\/p>\n

      According to the Court, permitting such a course would deprive the successful party of the fruits of the award and defeat the object of arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism.<\/p>\n

      The Court then dealt with the submission founded on the 246th Law Commission Report.<\/p>\n

      Whether the 246th Law Commission Report supports retrospective invalidation<\/p>\n

      The Court rejected the reliance placed by the judgment debtors on the 246th Law Commission Report<\/span>. It observed that the Report merely constituted the basis for introducing the 2015 Amendment<\/span> to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a>. According to the Court, although the Law Commission recognised the need to strengthen neutrality and impartiality by introducing Section 12(5) and the Fifth and Seventh Schedules, this did not justify extending the ratio of Bhadra International<\/span> case to arbitrators appointed prior to 23 October 2015.<\/p>\n

      The Court further held that had the legislature intended to disqualify arbitrators appointed before that date, it could have made the amendment retrospectively applicable from the commencement of the 1996 Act. Instead, Section 12(5) was made effective only from 23 October 2015, indicating a legislative intent not to invalidate appointments made earlier.<\/p>\n

      The Court further relied on Aravali Power Co. (P) Ltd. v. Era Infra Engg. Ltd.<\/span>, (2017) 15 SCC 32<\/a>, observing that the Supreme Court had upheld an arbitration agreement permitting unilateral appointment where the appointment had been made prior to 23 October 2015. The Court noted that the Supreme Court had held that, for appointments governed by the pre-amendment regime, the mere fact that the named arbitrator was an employee of one of the parties did not by itself give rise to a presumption of bias or lack of independence. It also observed that the amended provisions would apply only to appointments made after 23 October 2015. The Court held that this decision squarely answered the submissions advanced by the judgment debtors.<\/p>\n

      The Court also referred to Rajasthan Small Industries Corpn. Ltd. v. Ganesh Containers Movers Syndicate<\/span>, (2019) 3 SCC 282<\/a>, S.P. Singla Constructions (P) Ltd. v. State of H.P.<\/span><\/span>, (2019) 2 SCC 488<\/a>, and Union of India v. Parmar Construction Co.<\/span><\/span>, (2019) 15 SCC 682<\/a>, noting that all three decisions reiterated that Section 12(5) did not render invalid unilateral appointments made prior to 23 October 2015.<\/p>\n

      Rejecting the contention that the principles underlying Sections 7, 11, 12 and 18 impliedly disqualified arbitrators even before the 2015 amendment, the Court held that while the Act always permitted a party to challenge an arbitrator on grounds such as bias, neutrality or lack of independence, there was no express statutory disqualification prior to 23 October 2015.<\/p>\n

      The Court then considered the effect of a party’s participation in the arbitral proceedings.<\/p>\n

      The Court further observed that a party could not accept the arbitration agreement while simultaneously challenging only the agreed procedure for appointment during execution proceedings. It held that where parties had agreed to the appointment procedure, participated in the arbitration without successfully challenging it, and allowed an award to be passed, they could not later rely on Bhadra International<\/span> case to resist execution.<\/p>\n

      According to the Court, the Act provided adequate safeguards to challenge the appointment at the appropriate stage, and those safeguards could not be converted into a means of defeating execution after the award had attained finality.<\/p>\n

      Whether Bhadra International case extends to pre-2015 appointments<\/p>\n

      The Court reiterated the settled principle that a judgment is an authority only for what it decides and not for what may logically follow from it. Referring to Ashwani Kumar Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission<\/span>, (2003) 11 SCC 584<\/a>, CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd.<\/span>, (1992) 4 SCC 363<\/a>, and Deepak Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra<\/span>, (2008) 16 SCC 14<\/a>, the Court observed that judicial decisions must be read in the context of the facts and the issues decided, and that isolated observations cannot be treated as statutory provisions or applied divorced from their context.<\/p>\n

      Applying the above principle, the Court reiterated that Bhadra International<\/span> dealt with arbitrations invoked after 23 October 2015 and the issues arising under Section 12(5).<\/p>\n

      The Court noted that the Supreme Court had nowhere held that appointments made prior to 23 October 2015, even if alleged to suffer from implicit disqualifications, were rendered illegal. The Court held that reading such a proposition into Bhadra International<\/span> would amount to reading the judgment beyond the issues it actually decided.<\/p>\n

      Distinguishing Dharma Prathishthanam case from Bhadra International case<\/p>\n

      The Court distinguished Dharma Prathishthanam<\/span>, observing that the arbitration clause in that case neither named an arbitrator nor authorised either party to appoint one. It merely provided that disputes would be resolved through arbitration under the Indian Arbitration Act. The arbitrator had nevertheless been appointed unilaterally by one party without the consent of the other, and the Supreme Court held such appointment to be invalid.<\/p>\n

      The Court then examined Bhadra International<\/span> case, noting that although the arbitration agreement pre-dated 23 October 2015, arbitration had been invoked after that date. The arbitration clause authorised appointment of the sole arbitrator by the Chairman of the Authority. The appointment was challenged for the first time in proceedings under Section 34 on the ground that, after the coming into force of Section 12(5), such appointment was contrary to the statutory disqualification contained in the Seventh Schedule, there being no express written waiver by the parties after the disputes had arisen.<\/p>\n

      The Supreme Court held that the objection could be raised in a Section 34 petition and that an appointment made in violation of Section 12(5), without a written waiver as contemplated by its proviso, was void ab initio<\/span>.<\/p>\n

      According to the Court, the Supreme Court referred to Dharma Prathishthanam<\/span> in Bhadra International<\/span> to hold that a non-consensual appointment, which was impermissible before 2015, continued to be impermissible after the 2015 amendment in the absence of an express written waiver under Section 12(5). The Court held that Bhadra International<\/span> could not be extended to invalidate appointments made prior to 23 October 2015 pursuant to an arbitration agreement authorising one party to appoint the arbitrator or naming the arbitrator. Accordingly, the Court rejected the contention advanced by the judgment debtors.<\/p>\n

      Reliance on Bhadra International case to challenge pre-2015 arbitral appointments<\/p>\n

      The Court analysed paragraphs 32 to 39 of Bhadra International<\/span> case, which had been heavily relied upon by the judgment debtors to contend that all unilateral appointments made prior to 23 October 2015 were without jurisdiction. The Court rejected this submission. It observed that the first issue before the Supreme Court in Bhadra International<\/span> concerned the applicability of Section 12(5) to an arbitrator appointed unilaterally after 23 October 2015. According to the Court, the Supreme Court’s discussion on Section 18 and equal treatment of parties was in the context of Section 12(5) and the post-amendment statutory regime.<\/p>\n

      The Court further observed that when Bhadra International<\/span> referred to Dharma Prathishthanam<\/span>, it was dealing with the specific factual situation in that case, where the arbitration agreement neither named an arbitrator nor authorised any person to appoint one, yet one party unilaterally appointed an arbitrator without the consent of the other. The Court held that the observations in Bhadra International<\/span> could not be read to mean that all unilateral appointments made prior to 23 October 2015, including appointments made in accordance with the arbitration agreement, were void ab initio<\/span>. According to the Court, such a reading would amount to a misinterpretation of the judgment.<\/p>\n

      The Court also observed that the reference in Bhadra International<\/span> to the mandatory provisions of the Act was in the context of Section 12(5). Therefore, the observation that what was implicit before the 2015 amendment had been made explicit thereafter could not be construed to mean that every unilateral appointment made prior to the amendment was invalid.<\/p>\n

      Rejecting the contention that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent, the Court held that arbitration is founded on party autonomy. It observed that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> permits parties to agree upon the number of arbitrators, the procedure for appointment, the procedure for challenging an arbitrator, the place and language of arbitration, and even permits waiver of the ineligibility under Section 12(5) by an express written agreement after disputes have arisen.<\/p>\n

      The Court therefore held that arbitration constitutes an exception to the general rule that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent.<\/p>\n

      The Court further observed that accepting the judgment debtors’ contention would indirectly give retrospective effect to Section 12(5), although the provision expressly came into force only on 23 October 2015. The Court held that what could not be achieved directly through legislation could not be achieved indirectly through interpretation.<\/p>\n

      The Court distinguished the decisions of the Delhi High Court, observing that they arose from proceedings under Section 34 challenging arbitral awards, where the validity of the appointment had itself been questioned and the awards were set aside on that basis. The Court held that those decisions did not govern execution proceedings where the appointment had never been successfully challenged in accordance with law. Similarly, the Court held that Chhabriya Cloth Stores v. Kamal Synthetics<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 1950<\/a>, K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi<\/span>, (1998) 3 SCC 573<\/a>, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.<\/span>, DS Textiles v. IIFL Finance Ltd.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 3443<\/a>, and Ingram Micro India (P) Ltd. v. Duckback Information Systems (P) Ltd.<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 5344<\/a>, did not support the proposition that every unilateral appointment made prior to 23 October 2015 was void ab initio<\/span>.<\/p>\n

      To reinforce the above interpretation, the Court referred to subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Courts.<\/p>\n

      Authorities on the applicability of the 2015 Amendment<\/p>\n

      To support its interpretation, the Court referred to several decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Courts dealing with the applicability of the 2015 Amendment<\/span> to arbitral proceedings commenced before 23 October 2015.<\/p>\n

      The Court referred to Aravali Power Company Pvt. Ltd.<\/span>, where the Supreme Court held that arbitral proceedings invoked before 23 October 2015 continued to be governed by the unamended Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court noted that the Supreme Court recognised that, under the pre-amendment regime, the mere fact that the named arbitrator was an employee of one of the parties did not by itself give rise to a presumption of bias. It further noted that the Supreme Court emphasised that any challenge to the arbitrator had to be raised in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the unamended Act and that, in the absence of such challenge, the agreed appointment procedure had to be given effect.<\/p>\n

      The Court also relied upon Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation Ltd.<\/span>, observing that the Supreme Court rejected the contention that Section 12(5) could invalidate an appointment made pursuant to an arbitration invoked before 23 October 2015. The Court noted that the Supreme Court held that the parties, having agreed to the appointment procedure and participated in the arbitral proceedings, could not subsequently seek appointment of an independent arbitrator without establishing circumstances giving rise to doubts regarding the arbitrator’s independence or impartiality. The Court further noted that the Supreme Court distinguished TRF Ltd.<\/span>, holding that it concerned an arbitration invoked after the 2015 Amendment<\/span>, whereas the arbitration before it had commenced prior to the amendment and was therefore governed by the unamended Act.<\/p>\n

      The Court observed that S.P. Singla Constructions Pvt. Ltd.<\/span> and Parmar Construction Company<\/span> also rejected the application of Section 12(5) to arbitrations invoked before 23 October 2015, including cases where the arbitrator was named in the agreement or was to be appointed by a designated authority.<\/p>\n

      The Court further referred to Integro Finserv Pvt. Ltd.<\/span>, where a request to substitute an arbitrator appointed before 23 October 2015 by relying on Section 12(5) was rejected. The Court noted that the decision held that the amended provision could not be applied retrospectively to render an arbitrator de jure ineligible where the arbitral proceedings had commenced before the amendment came into force.<\/p>\n

      The Court also relied upon State of Maharashtra v. Morya Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.<\/span>, observing that it rejected the contention that Section 12(5) applied retrospectively to appointments made before 23 October 2015. The Court noted that the decision, relying on Bhadra International<\/span> and BCCI v. Kochi Cricket (P) Ltd.<\/span>, reiterated that the applicability of the 2015 Amendment<\/span> depends upon the date on which the notice invoking arbitration was received under Section 21<\/a> of the 1996 Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n

      The Court noted that since arbitral proceedings commencing before 23 October 2015<\/span> continue to be governed by the unamended Act unless the parties agree otherwise, the disqualifications introduced by Section 12(5) and the Fifth and Seventh Schedules cannot be invoked in such proceedings.<\/p>\n

      The Court then referred to Dharma Prathishthanam<\/span>, observing that the Supreme Court distinguished between cases where the parties had, by agreement, named the arbitrator or authorised a designated person to appoint one, and cases where neither the arbitrator nor the appointing authority had been agreed upon. The Court noted that the Supreme Court held that where there was no such agreement, one party could not unilaterally appoint an arbitrator without the consent of the other, and the proper course was to seek appointment through the Court.<\/p>\n

      On the basis of the above authorities, the Court concluded that the Supreme Court had consistently upheld appointments made before 23 October 2015 in accordance with the arbitration agreement, including appointments by a named arbitrator or a designated appointing authority, and had rejected attempts to invalidate such appointments by retrospectively applying Section 12(5).<\/p>\n

      The Court further held that Dharma Prathishthanam<\/span> governs cases of non-consensual appointments where the arbitration agreement neither named an arbitrator nor authorised an appointing authority, and that Bhadra International<\/span> could not be extended to invalidate appointments made before 23 October 2015 in cases falling outside that category.<\/p>\n

      Also Read:<\/span> Retrospective Application of the 2015 Amendment and Unilateral Appointment of Arbitrators | SCC Times<\/a><\/p>\n

      Conclusion<\/p>\n

      The Court answered the issues as follows:<\/p>\n

      Issue 1:<\/span> Whether unilateral appointment of an arbitrator prior to 23 October 2015 is without jurisdiction and, consequently, whether all proceedings arising therefrom would be void ab initio?<\/p>\n

      The Court held that a unilateral appointment made prior to 23 October 2015 pursuant to an arbitration clause that either named the arbitrator, identified the arbitrator by designation, or authorised one of the parties to appoint the arbitrator, would not be without jurisdiction. Consequently, proceedings arising from such appointments would not be void ab initio<\/span>. However, where the arbitration agreement neither named an arbitrator nor conferred on one of the parties the right to appoint an arbitrator, but one party nevertheless appointed an arbitrator without the consent of the other party, such appointment would be void.<\/p>\n

      The Court held that, in view of its answer to Issue 1, the second issue did not survive for consideration except in cases falling within the third category, namely, non-consensual appointments. In such cases, the Executing Court would be justified in treating the arbitral award as void. However, where a challenge to such appointment had already been made and rejected, the Executing Court could not thereafter treat the award as void.<\/p>\n

      The Court directed that the matters be listed for further consideration on 15 September 2026.<\/p>\n

      Also Read:<\/span> Can Section 12(5) of Arbitration Amendment Act, 2015 be invoked retrospectively? Supreme Court answers | SCC Times<\/a><\/p>\n

      [S. E. Investments Ltd.<\/span> v. Star Bazaar Pvt. Ltd.<\/span>, Interim Application No. 2007 of 2026, decided on 4-8-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

      Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

      For the applicants:<\/span> Devesh Khara a\/w Abhinav Kalia, Devesh Dubey, Shoumya Sahu, Akhilesh Nair, Bismit Nayak, Lakshya Bhatia, & Devendra Kumar Singh i\/by DKL Advocates<\/p>\n

      For the respondents:<\/span> Mehul Rathod for Respondent 2 & 3 in IA\/2009\/2026<\/p>\n

      Senior Advoate Ashish Kamat, a\/w. Shivanee Srivastava, Varun V. Dhonde, Henna Daulay & Gunjan Shah i\/by M\/s G.S. Legal for the Respondent-Judgment Debtor in IA\/2015\/2026<\/p>\n

      Amicus Curiae:<\/span> Jay Sanklecha<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      The Court clarified that appointments made unilaterally without contractual authority or consent would be void, subject to the Court’s clarification regarding unsuccessful prior challenges.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":392758,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[2633,3226,10111,111804,40741,111808,111811,2518,111807,111805,111806,111812,70117,30650,111813,111802,111810,111801,34169,111809,111803,66396],"class_list":["post-392757","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-arbitral_award","tag-arbitration","tag-arbitration-agreement","tag-arbitration-amendment-act-2015","tag-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996","tag-bhadra-international-india-pvt-ltd","tag-bharat-broadband-network-ltd-v-united-telecoms-ltd","tag-Bombay_High_Court","tag-central-organisation-for-railway-electrification-v-eci-spic-smo-mcml-jv","tag-contractually-authorised-arbitrator","tag-dharma-prathishthanam","tag-ellora-paper-mills-ltd-v-state-of-madhya-pradesh","tag-execution-of-arbitral-award","tag-execution-proceedings","tag-jaipur-zila-dugdh-utpadak-sahkari-sangh-ltd-v-ajay-sales-suppliers","tag-named-arbitrator","tag-perkins-eastman-architects-dpc-v-hscc-india-ltd","tag-section-125-arbitration-and-conciliation-act","tag-supreme-court-of-india","tag-trf-ltd-v-energo-engineering-projects-ltd","tag-unilateral-appointment-before-23-october-2015","tag-unilateral-appointment-of-arbitrator"],"yoast_head":"\nBombay HC on validity of unilateral arbitrator appointments before 2015 amendment | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Bombay HC holds that unilateral arbitrator appointments before Section 12(5) came into force are not void ab initio where authorised by the arbitration agreement.\" \/>\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\/2026\/08\/07\/bombay-hc-unilateral-arbitrator-appointments-pre-2015-amendment\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bombay High Court: Contractually authorised unilateral appointment of arbitrator not void ab initio in pre-Section 12(5) arbitrations\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Bombay HC holds that unilateral arbitrator appointments before Section 12(5) came into force are not void ab initio where authorised by the arbitration agreement.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/07\/bombay-hc-unilateral-arbitrator-appointments-pre-2015-amendment\/\" \/>\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=\"2026-08-07T13:00:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Unilateral-appointment-of-arbitrator.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=\"Bombay High Court: Contractually authorised unilateral appointment of arbitrator not void ab initio in pre-Section 12(5) arbitrations\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"NewsArticle\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/07\\\/bombay-hc-unilateral-arbitrator-appointments-pre-2015-amendment\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/07\\\/bombay-hc-unilateral-arbitrator-appointments-pre-2015-amendment\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Editor\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"headline\":\"Bombay High Court: Contractually authorised unilateral appointment of arbitrator not void ab initio in pre-Section 12(5) arbitrations\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-07T13:00:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/07\\\/bombay-hc-unilateral-arbitrator-appointments-pre-2015-amendment\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":4102,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/07\\\/bombay-hc-unilateral-arbitrator-appointments-pre-2015-amendment\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/Unilateral-appointment-of-arbitrator.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"arbitral award\",\"Arbitration\",\"arbitration agreement\",\"Arbitration Amendment Act 2015\",\"Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996\",\"Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd.\",\"Bharat Broadband Network Ltd. v. United Telecoms Ltd.\",\"Bombay High Court\",\"Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV)\",\"Contractually Authorised Arbitrator\",\"Dharma Prathishthanam\",\"Ellora Paper Mills Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh\",\"execution of arbitral award\",\"execution proceedings\",\"Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. v. Ajay Sales & Suppliers\",\"Named Arbitrator\",\"Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd.\",\"Section 12(5) Arbitration and Conciliation Act\",\"Supreme Court of India\",\"TRF Ltd. v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd.\",\"Unilateral Appointment before 23 October 2015\",\"Unilateral Appointment of Arbitrator\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"High Courts\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/07\\\/bombay-hc-unilateral-arbitrator-appointments-pre-2015-amendment\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/07\\\/bombay-hc-unilateral-arbitrator-appointments-pre-2015-amendment\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/07\\\/bombay-hc-unilateral-arbitrator-appointments-pre-2015-amendment\\\/\",\"name\":\"Bombay HC on validity of unilateral arbitrator appointments before 2015 amendment | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/07\\\/bombay-hc-unilateral-arbitrator-appointments-pre-2015-amendment\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/07\\\/bombay-hc-unilateral-arbitrator-appointments-pre-2015-amendment\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/Unilateral-appointment-of-arbitrator.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-07T13:00:46+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Bombay HC holds that unilateral arbitrator appointments before Section 12(5) came into force are not void ab initio where authorised by the arbitration agreement.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/07\\\/bombay-hc-unilateral-arbitrator-appointments-pre-2015-amendment\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/07\\\/bombay-hc-unilateral-arbitrator-appointments-pre-2015-amendment\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/07\\\/bombay-hc-unilateral-arbitrator-appointments-pre-2015-amendment\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/Unilateral-appointment-of-arbitrator.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/Unilateral-appointment-of-arbitrator.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Unilateral appointment of arbitrator\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/07\\\/bombay-hc-unilateral-arbitrator-appointments-pre-2015-amendment\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bombay High Court: Contractually authorised unilateral appointment of arbitrator not void ab initio in pre-Section 12(5) arbitrations\"}]},{\"@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:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"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":"Bombay HC on validity of unilateral arbitrator appointments before 2015 amendment | SCC Times","description":"Bombay HC holds that unilateral arbitrator appointments before Section 12(5) came into force are not void ab initio where authorised by the arbitration agreement.","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\/2026\/08\/07\/bombay-hc-unilateral-arbitrator-appointments-pre-2015-amendment\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bombay High Court: Contractually authorised unilateral appointment of arbitrator not void ab initio in pre-Section 12(5) arbitrations","og_description":"Bombay HC holds that unilateral arbitrator appointments before Section 12(5) came into force are not void ab initio where authorised by the arbitration agreement.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/07\/bombay-hc-unilateral-arbitrator-appointments-pre-2015-amendment\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-08-07T13:00:46+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Unilateral-appointment-of-arbitrator.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Bombay High Court: Contractually authorised unilateral appointment of arbitrator not void ab initio in pre-Section 12(5) arbitrations","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"NewsArticle","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/07\/bombay-hc-unilateral-arbitrator-appointments-pre-2015-amendment\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/07\/bombay-hc-unilateral-arbitrator-appointments-pre-2015-amendment\/"},"author":{"name":"Editor","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"headline":"Bombay High Court: Contractually authorised unilateral appointment of arbitrator not void ab initio in pre-Section 12(5) arbitrations","datePublished":"2026-08-07T13:00:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/07\/bombay-hc-unilateral-arbitrator-appointments-pre-2015-amendment\/"},"wordCount":4102,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/07\/bombay-hc-unilateral-arbitrator-appointments-pre-2015-amendment\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Unilateral-appointment-of-arbitrator.webp","keywords":["arbitral award","Arbitration","arbitration agreement","Arbitration Amendment Act 2015","Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996","Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd.","Bharat Broadband Network Ltd. v. United Telecoms Ltd.","Bombay High Court","Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV)","Contractually Authorised Arbitrator","Dharma Prathishthanam","Ellora Paper Mills Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh","execution of arbitral award","execution proceedings","Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. v. Ajay Sales & Suppliers","Named Arbitrator","Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd.","Section 12(5) Arbitration and Conciliation Act","Supreme Court of India","TRF Ltd. v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd.","Unilateral Appointment before 23 October 2015","Unilateral Appointment of Arbitrator"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","High Courts"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/07\/bombay-hc-unilateral-arbitrator-appointments-pre-2015-amendment\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/07\/bombay-hc-unilateral-arbitrator-appointments-pre-2015-amendment\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/07\/bombay-hc-unilateral-arbitrator-appointments-pre-2015-amendment\/","name":"Bombay HC on validity of unilateral arbitrator appointments before 2015 amendment | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/07\/bombay-hc-unilateral-arbitrator-appointments-pre-2015-amendment\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/07\/bombay-hc-unilateral-arbitrator-appointments-pre-2015-amendment\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Unilateral-appointment-of-arbitrator.webp","datePublished":"2026-08-07T13:00:46+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Bombay HC holds that unilateral arbitrator appointments before Section 12(5) came into force are not void ab initio where authorised by the arbitration agreement.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/07\/bombay-hc-unilateral-arbitrator-appointments-pre-2015-amendment\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/07\/bombay-hc-unilateral-arbitrator-appointments-pre-2015-amendment\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/07\/bombay-hc-unilateral-arbitrator-appointments-pre-2015-amendment\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Unilateral-appointment-of-arbitrator.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Unilateral-appointment-of-arbitrator.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Unilateral appointment of arbitrator"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/07\/bombay-hc-unilateral-arbitrator-appointments-pre-2015-amendment\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bombay High Court: Contractually authorised unilateral appointment of arbitrator not void ab initio in pre-Section 12(5) arbitrations"}]},{"@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:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","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\/2026\/08\/Unilateral-appointment-of-arbitrator.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/392757","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=392757"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/392757\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":392761,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/392757\/revisions\/392761"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/392758"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=392757"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=392757"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=392757"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}